Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



li i!;i) 

Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 

JOO f, a, LU iJUTHOM, ) / Appeal fr«a 


6T ^ " ^ 1 

Superior Court, 
C^nk County. 

w. aamvnR, / i 

.,..-ix„t. /i 216 LA. 621 


I'h* piaintirr b«lo«^ «h« la app«ll«« h«r«. sutd th« 
d»r«nd«it in an action on the eaao, ailoclac a oonsplraey betvaoa 
dofa^dMat and othera, by ahleh def«nd«it waa arraaiod, and falaa** 
Qharged with tlia criaa of diaorderly eonduot and aalioioua 
Biaohlaf. "^ 

Tha oaaa aont to iriaJl on tha fourth count, «>iioli 
oliarged that an tho 13th day of Unveaibar, 1914, plaintiff vaa 
aauaulted by tha dafandunt«appallant , and co^pallad to go with 
hin to a polioa atation, and thara lapriaoned ejkd da.ialned by 
force without any roaaonablo or probable oauaa • Tho Uafandant 
filed tha general ianue and a ap^hial plea, in whlah ha aet up 
that at the tlao in n^eation, he vea a polioa officer in ths 
eaploya»nt of the City of Ghloago: that plaintiff, with 
another aaa, was repairing a building kB0«i aa 4716 North 
Paulina atreet, Chi oago; that defendant rofiioated than to 
produoa a perait; that plaintif replied that they had no ^"^V 

perait; that ho, defendant, than told then to eease the ^ 
whioh they rofuoad to do, ahoraupon he arroated tha plalr 

The Batorlal fuota are not diaputad. Plaln^^ 
boon ap^olntc4 receiver of the preadaoa in queation 
•auparior Court of Oeok '->unty. Tha defendant (a^ 
waa a party to the procrrdlnir in «hJ oh a&id r 




■ade, clalBing an interest in the premises. On No^afeer 13, 
1«14, plaintiff, with a worknwn vmder his dir«cti«n was working 
on the building vhon defendant oidse along and aaksd plaintiff 
ftoat he was doing. Plaintiff then took from his pocket a copy 
of the order of the court hy idiich he was appointed a receiwor 
of the premises. Defendant said he did not giro "a daan" for 
the paper, and pulled his revolTer on the wor knan, who was on 
the roof of the perch, and 8»id "I will giro you Just two 
minutes to cone down.** Thereupon plaintiff waa taten hy defendant 
to the Robey street police station and woe not released until about 
fire or six o'clock that ni#it. Defendant waa not on his regular 
beat at the tiae, and was not wearing a polioeaan's uniforn. Ho 
had a star on his rest, howver, iriiich he exhibited to plaintiff. 

At the oonoluBlon of the eyidenoe the court directed 
a Terdiot for plaintiff and the Jury brought in such a rerdict 
assessing danages* 

The principal contentions of appelleuit are that the 
court erred in instructing the Juiy to find for ihe plaintiff 
and in refusing to receive in eridenee certain sections of 229 
and 330 of the building ordinances of tte City of Chicago. The 
■ections offered are not preserved in the Mil of exceptions. 
We eanrjot take judicial notice thereof, and therefore, cannot 
detencine irixether, conceding a riolatien of the ordinance by 
plaintiff, he would have been subject to arrewt therefor. The 
arrest was conceded. The burden was on defenrlant to Justify, 

Appellant cites us to Corpus Juris, Vol. 5, page 407, 

paragraph 32 B. B. to the effect, - 

"At coBBson law and except as modified by 
statutes any officer ohttiged with preserving the 
public peace imy arrest without a warrant any 
person who is conaiitting a breach of j)eace in his 
presence. Citing Cahill v, People , 106 111, 621; 
Shan ley v. jfells> 71 id, 78. » 


V9 do not Question the rule there announced but it i« BOt 
applicftbl* to this record, for the reason thnt there is 
no OTidenoe tending to show a brea^ of the peaec by plain- 
tiff at the tiJBs in questien. 

Ths judgaent will be affimed. 


441 - 24794 


Appellee f 

JOHN M. UmyHtJSi et al., 

Ob Appeal of J(mS M. HOF 


} Appeal frcn 

Circuit Court, 
Co die County* 

216 I,A, 621 

Ml. PHifiilBMO Jtj3TlC3; MATCHSTT 

The plain tiff sued in assuB^sit for mtxatij claimed 
to be uue on an agre eaten t of tlae defendant to pay her #2,000 
for her servioes in procuring a. ocntraet for a ewitoh track 
to be placed on defendant's land, the oaae was tried by a 
jury which brought in a verdict for plaintiff for the full 
amount of her claia, and on this verdict the court entered 

In October, 1910, plaintiff, who previously resided 
in Chicago, wab living on a farm at Montague, Michigan, ^he 
caae to Chicago in reepemae to a letter from one ^. o. Barbee, 
ti^o waa then engaged in the real et^tate business, Mid who 
wrote her, - * * * i have a natter that you sight tate up 
for m», that would malte you several hundred dollars." Upon 
her arrival in Chie&go, she was introduced by Mr. Barbee to 
the defendant Hoffman. She testified: "Kr. Hoffmm said that 
if I could get that switch, thi^t he would pay me |2,000, but 
he said, *It is a hard propoeition. X have had sevexvJ. people 
trjnlng to get this switch track, end they havB failed.*" She 
further testified defen^lant told her the property was sold to 
the Robinson Coal Conpany, that she took up the matter of the 
contract for a switch with Vr. Clarence . Knight, in whose 
office she was fo <»Rrly en^loyed; that defendant furnished 

i^. >^ 

h»r with an abstract of the title oi' the property, which w a 
•xanlned \>y «r. Xhig^t at her request; that Knight called up 
iir. Hetzler, the preaident of the Belt Line Railtrajr Coagpfmy, 
and asked his to d* all he could to aid plaintiff in getting 
a contract for the switch; that the chief engineer of the road 
was called in consultation on the matter, se-veral plans for 
the switch subaitted, and as progress was made, she reported 
•• defendant and his associate Mr. Barl»ee, and after ten days 
er two weeks of efforts, procured a contract for the switch 
track, with a collateral or subsidiary agreement which was 
submitted to defendant Hoffman, and after being referred by 
hint to Ut, B»rbee, wa» accepted. 

Ihese a^;reenents are in evidence and tend to 
corroborate the tostiaony of the plaintiff, the agnenent for 
a switch track is dated Norentber 10, 1910. It is signed by 
the Beltr Hallway as party of the first part and «. b. Barbee 
as party of the second part. A plat showing the proposed 
switeh is attached there tr. The collateral agreennent of the 
saise date is executed by the asms parties and recitea th-tt a 
coal chute la about to be constructed on the premises, and 
contains particular coyenants as to the manner in which it 
Mgr bo constructed. By a i»riting on the back of the original 
eontruot it appears the same was as<^)if^;ned to defendant by 
Barbee liity 29, 1912. 

On the other hand the defendant testified, and in 
this is corroborated by Barbee, that the wily agreement with 
the plaintiff was that she should in conjunction with Barbee, 
•ndeaTour to sell the property, and that if a sale was 
effected for the price asked ($24,000) plaintiff and Barbee 
wwre to receive ;P4,000 as eoflipensr.Ltion for their services. 

The principal contention of the defendant is that 



the -rerdlct ia against the weight of the evidenoe. It ia urged 

that in conformity witix the rule laid down in Peaalee v. Gl«,s» , 

61 III. 94, this shotild b6 coisidercd a ease where the jury 

should not gif« a wrdiot on iii« imsupported teetimeny of the 

plaintiff » v«hen that teatieiony ia denied hy «37idenoe of the 

defendant equally credible, we do net question that rule, but 

do not think it applicable, wlunre, aa here, the plaintiff ia 

eorroborated by written evidence and her teetiatony is more 

probable and re na enable than that of the defendant. % have 

oxamined this evidence in detail, ajid neither that of defendant 

nor of hio only other witness, who waa his office associate for 

t^rmty yeara, girea us the impression of reliability, 'ihe 

latter, for inotanoo testified positively, "Z don't reBMUdMr 

anything abrut a coal ohuto* If I did, I would tell you,** 

lAien shown an unaij^ad copy of the agrenment ssade for the same. 

Later, the original agreement was prochioed with his signatxire 

thereon shoving his knowledge, when que at ions were put to the 

defendant, temding to show that proposed sales of tiie prof:>erty 

had failed because of the lack of switch tracks facilities, he 

evaded, and when the court put the direct question, ''Was the 

subject of switch tracks ever discussed in the matter of these 

so-called *Bibbles* *, he replied: 

"Oh, I never undertaloa to sell property 
■grself. It was rOLways through f«gents, and I 
have no doubt but what those agents had talked 
about tiie availability of « switch, but an fsr 
&s 1 am concerned inyaelf, I never talked with 
the parties principal about the property." 

The Jury evidently considered the evidence submitted for do#endwit 

&6 evasive nnd unreliable. *e ere not able to say it was not 

Justified ia so doing. 

It is claimed the court erred in admitting evidence 

of the financial atwading of defendant. This svidence, however. 

• 4« 

WMt brought eat »» p«rt8 '^f conTc^r&atlons with thp '$«fendimt 

In regard to thu p»yiB«at of plalmtlff** claln, w)iloh conT«rsatioa« 

««r« clenrXjr adalssible. 

It l0 else olaiflwd th^t t)» emirt «rr«di in refusing to 
Admit a e«py of a l«tt«r written by <i«f«}adftat to aa attomfty #!• 
had r«pr«seat«d plaintiff In the proaccutien of her clain* For 
two reaeena this copy waa properly rejeotad. In the firat plaoe 
a proper fcun4ntl«a for th« introduction of it «<%« not laid, and 
la the 8«re«ad place, the letter it^lf waa a aaXf-Etenring 
dacument • 

Appellnjit alao arg;uea thnt there waa error in one of 
the Instructiona given, the Inetruotiona are not all abstracted 
but we hare exaained the nn^ ecaaplained of and think it wae net 

The Jttdgaeat will be affirnsd. 



449 • a4B02 


a Gorpors%tl(QR, 

LOUIS J. aHcaa,\ 

ittperlor i^ourfc, 
Cook Cnunty. 

^16I.A. 621 

TlMs •i<!jfen<lr4nt appcala from 6 Judg^nt for pl&lntiff 
«nt«r«d upon th* verdict of a Jury, i^iiok ▼».* -diet r.'vM diiN^cted 
■by the 'srawrt at tbft el«»e ©f all ihe ©Trldcnce. 

tins dteie-rrtion wae tbt eflwaen camt@ mwl 4b© *».ffid«irit 
vhidh '^-^u ntt^ahed, stated ffu^X tha euit waa for tm ttnpwid 'bal*m©e 
dti» pltsintiff <m aoQount, for money lowt^d tmd advanced during the 
yr'SiTii 1913 aad 1914, tog«th<?r with in te root tJiereon, A bill of 
particulars filed ohowrJ tvfenty-miJ! debit ite»» sigainot the 
defoncSant, aiwt^jntiag to |8,500,o«, and tm^nty-f^ur it«iB» of 
ere !ita, amnuntins to .>7, 046.68, showing n Wiiwice of ;^l,45d«40, 
upon t?blch pl&intiff claimed interest at fivo par c«mt p«r finnuJB, 
frofii &nuary 1, 1915, Th« deftn<:Ji*nt plcade«l tht gonerai iaeao 
and V. special pli»8 in which he »«t up the o&king of two written 
contract e w'ith lain tiff, wmreby def«Bd<u»t wu» «bq>loyed during 
th* years 19XZ and 1914. and by the Urwm of fthieh iefendsMt 
wao »ilow«d A draiMing account of 1354.17 pei- month, which the 
plea ttverr«d WBf'unt'sd in la* to an a^^ref^iyftnt thnt the drawing 
• ccoimt oh^'ttld >x a minirfntiK aalary, thrit the debits in plain- 
tiff's account were all items of thie cS rawing account. At the 
conclusion of tJ*P evidenoe, th« plaintiff having re«itt« i aa 
it«A Of 135. OC there . ^a left no saterial disputed i«»ue of 
fact. iJefendftjnt wto in the employ of plaintiff fer about 
fifteen years, isBisscui&tely prior to the terznin&tien of his 

£. ^ O mJsTit 

•^ployaent by his o«n resignation on the first day of Jftmiary, 
1915, Oaring the ysars 1913 and 1914 ths terms of his eoDloy- 
Bent ware set forth in similar written contracts covering each 
year. These contracts provided that defendant should devote 
sJ.1 his tiise to t)w service of the plaintiff and claiase 3 provided, 
"As coopenstition to se^id party of the second part Franklin MaeYeagh 
k Co., agree to pay him as fellows, a eojuaiseiMi equal to forty 
per eent of the selling percentage on eadt item of their selling 
lists, sold by hiai or sold to his eusteasrs through nail order 
or in the House « • « ,* in elauae 5 it was prorlded that the 
«ewnl salons should tie reported to the defendant monthly, and if 
lansatlsf&ctory to hin, he night at once rescind the contract by 
giving notice in writing, and defendant waived the right to 
<|t»ation the figuring on his oonmissione unless he gave notice 
•f his desire so to do, within ten d«y8 after receiving a month- 
ly statemsnt charged. Clause 7 provided that defendjBot should be 
held and regarded only as an ett^loye of the ecmpany "whose 
oMip^ensatlon is meaaiired and payable in ths tmrnitss herein provided 
•nd not otherwise.* 

These eontrncts eere in the usual printed forms, hut 
before execution thereof, plaintiff*s president in each case 
wrote thereon with a ^^n, "dr^iwing account $354.17 per mmith.* 
Xaoh month during the two years plaintiff advanced the said sum 
to defendant, and at the end of each month rendered to him an 
account in which defendant waa charged therewith and credited 
with ths amount of o«Bjr*is«ions earned, and iKhtn, as wnis usually 
the oase, the amount dra^m was larger than conaBlssions et^med, 
he was charged in the statement with the balano« due, and this 
balanee was always carried forward on his .ccount for the next 
■math. Defendant knew how the account stood all the timn. 

The account rendered Hovember 1, 1914, showed defendant 
debtor to a balance of $1,039.04. This balance against him was 



inere«i&ed hy furtber slmilnr deficit* for l«f<iift«r auad l}ec«i»ber 
to |1,493«40. 

On Mardh 32, 1915, plaintiff 0«nt defendant a statftinent 
showing «t debit bftlariee of ::l,453.4t, an4 a»k<>d tht<t sa sfsttXeisent 
should be arx-«uif'.«d. With rnferenee thereto defendant tSRtifiss: 
•I w»B Tery oueh surpritted w>i«n 1 r«ceiY«d th^t letter on Mfi^rcii 
22nd, 1915, I stttppotjed the fif?ur«s were th« eaii», na I hud all 
the ecsrly statements, X waai suxpriaed I got that states^nt, 
iMtcrmse I did not e^»ct to get a atrteiaent und^r ti» circvm^ 
stfonoes I m&M working there. I vats expecting: that he would make 
as to present of thit balance i%^ he had in otlMsr years.* 

In the four or fiveprevi eus years of defendant's 
employmeint the commit si one «mmed did not e(|ual the total urn- tint 
of the drawing accounts. He was never asked to pay the halanees 
and did not repay thesi. In 1912 there was & halisuiee due defendsnt 
of 1122. 8S, K*iich was paid by plwlntiff's cheek. 

The defend«*nt urgea the preposition of law h(?re, 

th«t the granting by en employer to mi eritploy© of r drawing 
Acooant, where tiie SfBploye is paid h coiWBiesion and not a 
stipuloted aslary, without » definite a-reewcnt requirtog the 
repayssent of «By part «f eald drnwing account advanced in the 
• vent sufticient cowts-iBaions mre net at^m^d to corer the fji".?unt 
drn'nn. Slakes euoh drawing isocount a ffiiniatusj salary. In support 
of this contention he cites Gannon ▼. Yyree . 148 111. &pp. 99; 
Hermann v. Uhry . 187 111. App. 32. 

'ihe oontracts tliere eonotrued differed waterially from 
thooe belore us in th?.t they oleariy showed that it wna the in- 
tention of the parties thst the drawing account should be a miniSHUS 
ssilary. ^ do not think such intftntion can in this ©r*8e be in- 
ferred eitlw»r from tiie vrittcn contracts or the laO'Je of dealing. 
Beck V. '-'leRt, 87 Ala. ni3; Farrc 1 i 7. Burbank, 57 f;inrs . 39 5, 

. sJ-namoJ'BJ'o 

X^XXXJOCXXXX^J^X^Xii-^M^tXX. v>,. 



f)9 £. '&• 46S* It stiould b« r«t£«^0iV«:r«<l thi^t th«r« «rati ne evidenoe 
offered in tbia cr^ae tending ts> »hov Ut 4 the t«r» '*)>r»>ring 
Aeffount* had a cittf mit« i:md fi;K<r'd ^eKmlng in the tr-^de fm6 tba4 
it B»fmt a g:u;«rtintjr of comrcl&sion*, tiiis »»« th« oontroiling 
fe.ct lo i.^irlotopher y. I hv che liatf r , 127 Kic^. 451, tshtfrt a c«9iiiTa(!i 
ep8»irfh' t citallar ^^^^sj*^ b€ conutrutjd. In the sibatnoe of waeh proof 
tut© rule Its othRrwlri* . 

Tho jttdgsffint will bo ufflrBsed. Kenat^c t. Eoaenthfcl. 
167 J'rr*a. 47C. 



5Xd • 24867 

Mmmt ^iCKtAKrrr. 




TKS bcvTREHs mnc;m Railway 

COia»MY, and CALDUit * oOtil' 
eorpOD^tioniu, doing buainea 
under t>te nfcoe snd etyl« o/ 
Chicago surface Line*, / 


.A. 621 

Ai'peal frons 
Cireuii Ceurt, 
Cook :o««ty. 


In tMs e&U9 Uu» plaintiff reoover«cl » jUKJigin«nt of 
i|2d00 in an bciion am th« Q&wi for peraecial injuriea. 

the Cise ii»ks aubraitted to the jury und«tr two counts 

•f ttaft declaration, one of i^Mch charged gen ' rally that the 


defendants oarelee&ly and irapr''perly drove / CKr, injuring 

plttintiff mdjilc he wee in the rxerolee of due care, end the 

other that dcfendimtB drove ^ c^^r »x en irareaoonable re-te of 

epecd. the defendant a filed the general ie<sue. 

The principal circutsatiyricee attending the injury ere 
set dieputed. Ih© accident oenurred .fuly 19» 1916, at about 
6.46 o'clock in the evening, end in the City ef Chic«go, at the 
interfl4^ctien of Sorth Califomie avenue and Barry avenue, 
California avenue is a public sstreet extending north »nd south. 
Bftrry nvenue is e public Btre<?t, extending e«et and irest, and 
intersecting Sorth Celifomia avenue at right angles. Defendants 
operated a double etieet ear line on Worth California »venue , 
Korthbound care ran ever the eaet tr»ck«. Southbound care r«a 
ever the vest tracks. 

l^laintiff lived at aiOb iJorth California Btneet. His 

yr^ •*/.< :t ,<v .:. « 




It^iee was on the east side of the street maA the third lot north 
of Barry aTonao . Kc owisd thre« teame tmd wa^jons, i^ioh w»re 
lt»pt la the re.iT of his home. Thoreeewjis a Ijulldlnir MOuth of 
hlo residence and the sc^uthesat corner lot wne T@oont. In th« 
rear of hie horao was ajrj alley leading to the l>sm where the 
teaae joid ^ngone were k<!pt« 

At the tiae la question he whu driving a Siingle horse 
hitched to ttn QwpXy wegon, and wae on his*, ^sty hotm after the 
day© work, Ke wna fifty-six years of age and w»8 an experiencwed 
dxlYer* The horae wne hllnd. 

The plaintiff did not testify to the facte of the 
injury. 'Ihe elfin vas made on hi^ behalf that his laeBiory had 
been inpalred aa a result of the Hocldent. The evident^ further 
ahewa thwt im wae drlvinig s'-uth snd in the eouUjfeo^flad track on 
California nventMt, thr^l aa he approached the Interaectim of 
California ftTenu* and Barry avenue he turned to the left nnd 
«a the northbound trac , at thr north oroea walk of Barry avenue , 
and before h« jjot aoroaa, was struck by a heary *pay»aa*ymi-enter* 
car of defendant* ahidn was rur. at a tvpeed of frcn twenty to 
t«enty*flve alles per hour* 

Appellant «5 have srgued that a prep on 'ie ranee of the 
evidence indicates that the aecident happened without negligence 
on their part. We have exa«infid the evidence bearing on thie 
point f,nd think the contention ottnnot be sustained. 

A more eerioue ^eetion is raised under the ccmtention 

that plfiintiff waa guilty of contrirutosry negligence. Defendanta 

offered in evidence b certaion aeotion of the Code of GhioaKO, 

entitled Hula* of the iHoad, ae follows: 

iSection 2484, Art. 5. "Before turning the 
comer of ^my street or public ^J^y, th<? driver 
or person in poise salon, charge or control of 
any vehicle be in?: ririven or propelled amund such 
comer, shfill ijive a aignai by raising his h(md 
or whip, 30 thnt 8U«h »ii:nal can be plainlj seen 
frOB behind such vehicle and frost the side towards 

• 5* 

i^ioh tii« turn is to \»e matltt, and sucb signal 
8h«il be given in a Kianner which »Jrs®H pialnXy 
indicate the direction in which such Tehicie ie 
fetout to turn. In turning corners to tn. right, 
Tchicies eh/ill tux-n -.o the ri,;ht of the eent*^r 
of the street, in turnin^r comers to tix left, 
vehicles ah«dl aleo p&nu to th« right of the 
cent'^r ©f tho int-rrsf ction of the two str<?f?ts,'' 

It io ondiBputedl that plaintiff did not cesopl/ with the 
provisione of this ordllnancte either by r&ioini^ his hand or ti^ip 
nt the tiiHK he was »h(iut to croeu th» etreet or in paeuing to 
the right in the ct^nter of the intersect ion of the two »tref!)ts. 
It is ci&iifiedi th t thie could not have he en the proxinaate cauae 
of the injury, hectaiee the intention of plaintiff to turn into 
Bnrry ftv«nue ht^cMoe known to the ttotorman on def^cndemts* esr 
in tiw to have aTOided the aocid«nt. This, ho^reTer, is not 
Uie law as has already been held by our Jupreaae Court in ;»e s t 
Chicaij!:!^ i;>tree-'t H^.^il'way v o. v. Lifiersmn , la? 111. 463, ■;«» think 
that plaintiff was thue guilty of negligence th?>t contributed 
proxiaufitely to e«t.use his injury end that mm mmt »o hold aa a 
aatter of !«»• jhite t# ig ast i^^d.e ^ill ^ Luabcr j^.» lf>4 Pad. 
7^S ^-ilAtin i>airy C;q. v, uheyhg^rd . lOS K, i. 3^4. 

Ths Jud^aeai will therefore be reversed with a 
finding «f faet* 




613 - 24867 

'im fiad fttt ft fact ttietX appellee, ^'Ugust c:>ch«iindt » 
■mnm guilty of Q«gllgenoe which coot rlfeu ted to the injury 
fiomplHin* d of aad for which he aues. 

247 - 25124 

JOHN jr. BUHKSi ete. 

H. A. MMKSOi Gt al. 

JOHI» J. BUHKh: et al., 
LOUIS 30£JM/iN, 

Appeal from 

iiuperior Court, 

Cook County . 

Appellant. / 


W|Jtv?:f<K.n THs CSPlino;: of THE crwiT, 



This is an appeal by Louia ^uasBUon from an order 
which approTed and con firmed the report of sale and diatrlhution 
made hy a ISHSter in Chancery under a decree of »ale. 

l"he decree waa entered in a proceeding hrought by 
certain claimanta for nsechanics' liene. The decree foiaid the 
•leounts reopectivGly of these liens, >md tht they were all 
subject to the liens of one Mary a* Cook, trustee, in certain 
trust deeds, which deeds were not, however, foreclosed in ttie 
proceeding • 

The premises which were directed to be sold were 
situated in the t;ity of i-hic«.go, county of cook and ..tate of 
Illinois, :.nd described ae lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, in block 3, 
in Frank ^ells ik Compimy^s Boulevard SttbdiTision. 

The aecree found th^t one Morris Yablong had a lien 
on lots 9 end 10, which lien was superior to all liens except 
those of iiary ;, Cook; that appellant iiusfetman had a lien upon 
lots 6, 7 and 8, which lien was inferior to the lien of ilaxy 
1. Cook and also to the liens of all the BEChanlcs* lien 
elalaumto* These claiMWito were found to hare a lien upon 
all of said lots for the respective amounts due to them. 


The decree directed th:it the Kaster should sell the 
real estate and pey the Yablong deht from the proceeds of the 
sale of lota 9 and 10 and report any deficiency if the proceeds 
irere inauff iclcnt, £md if there was any surplus, use the bhuib , 
together with the proceeds of lots 6, 7 and 6 in satitsfyin^ the 
aechanicB* lien claiisinnte . It also provided that if there vas a 
further surplus that the MKstcr should pay the saaie t9» the 
defendant Louis Bttse&Rn* In ca^e there was any defieienoy as 
to say of the clainants, the Imater was to so state. 

The kaster reported the execution of the decree, setting 
up the steps takea in detail, and stating th;^t he h^d offered each 
of the lots described in the decree separately, whereupon no bid 
was Bade; th&t he had offered any coniblnntion of lots lesu than 
the entire number and had especially offered lots 6, 7 and 6 in 
ooffibination end also lots 9 and 10 in combinntion, whereupon no 
bid ^as nade; that lie offered any part or portion of the premiooo 
less than the entire presises, whereupon no bid w^s made; thsit he 
then offered the entire premises described in the decree, where* 
upon Joseph Pearsen offered and bid tYm smm of $20,167 .42 in cash, 
and that, being the highest and best bid, he sold the sane to 

The report further showed the s^plic tion of the purchase 
■oaey as provided by the decree. The claim of Morris Y^ablong was 
paid in full, there was not sufficient l&ft to aatisfy the 
mechanics* lien claims. The receipts of the parties were attached 
to the report, showing the respective payments made. 

On the sajse day this report wus filed, appellant iiled 
written exceptions in which he set up that the s ale as held, mie 
not for cash, artd in support of the exn«ption« filed an ;=if fidavit 
setting up that he was present nt the sale and tiiat all the 
parties had left the aalesroons, but no money had up to th<jt tias 



twen paid, thHt he pointed this out to the M»ater, who replied 
that lie was satisfied with the responcibility of the purchaser 
snd that the matter would be cleaned up at the ]last'~r*s office 
on the Bi'dw d«y* A petition setting up the 8»ae alleged f»ots, 
suhetantially, 9<^8 filed by appellant. The Master was sworn 
as a witness, and his testimony, vfMch is uneontredicted sad 
eupported by the receipts of the pa^rties entitled to the money, 
she««d that the prurchaee prioe was fully paid in oaeh. The 
court thereupon orerruled the exceptions and approvetl the 

Appell^mt first contende thit the sale wafi not made 
for cash* The Oiancellor heard thr» evidence Bnd,|r@ think, 
correctly fnund that this contention was not sustained* Appellant 
raises the further objection tiiat no deficiency decree was entered 
in hie favor. The M/^eter reported the facte. It does not appear 
froa the record thut appellant smde any motion for the entry of 
a deficiency Judgzoent in his favor, i^rther, aa he filed no cross 
bill he was not entitle- d to such r. judgzaant even had the motion 
been aede . Ahite ▼. ' Vhite . £r,, 10.4 111. 4iQ; flab cook v. gai'well t 
169 111. App. 279. 

i^pellant finally arfiiues that th«? distribution made under 
tte sale was ifl^^roper. This objection »ae not m^e below and is 
not assigned for error here. The sale and distribution seen to 
haYe been sube taut i ally as directed by the decree end the decroo 
Itself is not before ua for review. 

The order approving the report of .ale and distribution 
will be affimed. 

25330 \ 

G« A. RQPF (Ine.), « 
6prp oration, 



Qiasm A. CQPf r 


Appeal from 

'iiuperler Court, 
Cook Coimty. 

216I.A. 622 


Ytiis ift an appftal 1?y the defendant from an interlocutory 
orddr denying o ssotlon of defoadant to diat^^lTe an injunction, 
whareby he. Gideon A. Copp, w a forbid (ien t» oarry ra the huaineea 
of gcnena carpentry and contrtncting under the nanw G* a« Cepp, 
or any other naiaa or style containing thla or any pert thereof ao 
ai&ilar to the title "G . a. Copp, Inc.* aa to permit confusion 
therewith, within the liadta of t^ne city of ChiOAgo, also from 
E»oliuitin,, cuotonera of eoaqi>lainant, emd fr(»i ine<?rting or 
adTcrtiaing in the elaacified telephone dintetery of the Chieago 
Telephone Coi^aiiy or the general diiectery of the City of Chioago, 
of the naaa 0. A, Copp or eimilar naB» with deeignation attached, 
indicating that defendttDt ia er^iaged la general carpentry or 
contr»ctlag buaineaa or other buainese oloaely Rliied therewith, 
fron "opening or naintaining a place of huelneas at liO, MS Baiih 
street. Chic .go, Illinolu, under the na— of £. n^, Copp . or any 
other naae or title eontainini; the worda *G. a. Copp or auffieient- 
ly roaembliag the aaaw* to be asnfuaed with the corporate title 
of the oonsplainant herein", and gen?" rally, from doing aj^thing 
to injure or depreciate the good will of the buaineae convnyed 
to the QOsiplainanL by aaid G. A. Copp or any aet intended to 
result in imfair coa^etition by misleading the public. 


Xh» HMtlon to diOBAlTe WHS in th« nnture af a deaounMr 
to iho bill and Uie facto theroin allogei mat bo taksn as truo. 
Tho question to bo doeidod therofozo, is whethor the ordnr for 
injunction waa Juatifiod und«r tho f aeto as stated. 

Tho jsaterial allegatlona of fact aro that on or about 
the Ist day of Maroh, 1917, dofendaat wo engaged in the baaineoo 
of general c:%rp«ntry and contracting at No. 821 Hush street, in 
the City of Chioago» ttiat negoti«itl<»e «ere entered into by oertain 
yoroono aaaod prodooeoeors in interest of cooq^lainAat for tho pur* 
cdiaso thereof, and that on the 16 th day of liar eh, 1917, a contract 
in writing wao entered into, between defendiot and ot^ld persons, 
i^^iroby defendant oold and conreyed oaid bu«inees» Including all 
property except the peroonal tools and effects and including tho 
"good will attached to aaid business, said bill of sale or ooa-> 
▼eyanee to be aade to the corporatimi hereinafter 'iescribed and 
hereafter to bf organised* for a conai'ierntion of $3000 to be paid. 

Tho third cIruoo of the writing proTidod the Ten dees 
therein agreed to fonm and organise as soon aa pcaaible, a 
oorporatlon to be known as 0. n* Copp, Inc., f9r the purpose of 
earrying on said business, to which corporation the property 
was to be oonyeyod. The vendor coT«nanted for hisuielf , hio 
hoirs end aesigno etc., that the Tendeeo, their succeaaora 
etc., "shall have the right to use the eaid nam herein above 
•pecified, during the legal existeneo of said corporation, and 
that he hlaself will not within two yearo froa April 2, 1917, 
at any place or location within a radius of three wiles f ro» 
oaid 821 Bush street, Chicago, Illinois, establish a shop or 
place of business or booeoo aoeooiated with any euoh shop or 
placo of business for the purpose of doinij; carpentry work, 
bttildlng oontr>< cting, mill work. Jobbing carpentry, or any other 




fom of 1>u»1r«»8 ih#t he ia now or hao boon earrying on at tho 
premises herein before desorlbp.d, nor will he sollelt, either 
directly or Indirectly, or take ^slnoss fron any person, fins 
or oorportfttlon now a regular ou»toaer of eald vendor at 821 
Rash street, 9xe«p% with the consent of G. A. Copp, Inc.* 

In another part of the contract It wsts agreed, *sald 
T^idor further agrees to assist In every possible way the said 
Tf^nciees in maintaining the good will of uald business and la 
retaining the old eustomers c«nn0cieci therewith, and to oo* 
operate wherever ycsslhle with the said vendees to enable thea 
successfully to carry on the bus las ss hereby contracted to bo 
conveys d • ** 

Tho said corporation vfi^ incorporated about April 2, 
1917, sad defenOfmt »ado and delivered to tho incorporators for 
the corporatism a bill of sale in -^ieh. the personal property 
was descrlb^^d and e ny^yed, and It wr^s also th««reln stated 
"intending to convey the general eai^entry and contrtecting 
buelneas, located at 821 imnh street. In th« C^ity of Chioago 
sBd ^tato of Illinois, now owned by the grsntor herein, also 
including the good will attached to said business.*' 

Those iBstruBMrats -^^ero executed under seal, lim 
e«9lalnant to<dt possossion, and has ever einoe held continuous 
possession and oontlnuoualy earried on said business »t said 
plnco. At the tlBW of BOgotiating these transactions, the 
personal property othrr tiian good will, was considered to lie 
of the value of ^,500 and tho defendant represented that he 
was a aian of oixty years of age and wished ts retire to a farm. 
With the IsHi of sale defendant also nelivered a list of his 
custofiiers, and an announc«s»nt of the change in the ownership 
of tho buoinosB was oent to e^^cb of said oustoisers by aail. 


Tht business haa ainm InorQased ^d the good will 

of it has bQO(»« Inseparably attached to the corporate naait 

aad the ttB« of «0Hq)lain8nt*& naiso i« csBential to maintaining 

Bald buuinqas. I'he bilX alleges that nov. In Yiolation of 

the written agroenent and bill of iiale, and tvith tha lnt<>nt 

to injure the good will of eoxoplainnnt and dnceive the public, 

generally, rlefenfiemt "hao fomwd the intention, and plana, un- 

leas restrained, to open up and maintriin under the name of 0. a. 

Copp, a pli>ce of buaineaa at No. 835 HutSn atreet, in the City 

of Chicago, v^ere ho will issaint&ln a d e«nry on the buainese of 

carpenter and eontr -ctor « * * the aaid Cideon - . Copp has 

CRUBcd to be mailed * * • * to auoay cuatemera a certain printed 

announoenent in vorda and figures as fellova, viz: 

*Q, A. Copp, carpenter and contr ^ctor. desires to 
announce that h« will j*e»uBie businean, l^ay 1st, 
1919, 8db Huah •street, phono, Superior 523, (after 
May 1) wl-sere he will be fully equipped to eerr* 
hie pj<trona with t-Mv spme effiriency as in the 
paat« Ho si den oe phcne, Grace land, 4704, Haaodelling, 
Impairing, cabinet work," 

And on the preadsea at 86t) >^ah street he haa placed a (»rtain 

eign, containing in largf; and plain lettering, the following 

inooription, "Thlss building will be occupied by «. ;v, Copp, 

carpentry, r-spftirin*; und alteration, netal work, furnace 


The bill further >aiegsa that hy naiua of this, ths 
custosere hare beoeae ecmfuacd, and that further daasge will 
reiiult unleae the defendant ia restrained. 

It is the contention of the defendant, appellant here, 
that beoaaae the cantr;ict in the euao had an sxpresa covenant, 
by whioh the defendiint agreed not to conduct a now buaineas in 
the neighborhood of the old for a period of two yeara, which 
agreenent haa expired by its own liisitRtions, the iaiplied 


eoTensRt thftt lbs Toluntary Tsndor 9f the good will may not do 
anything to les^^on the T&lue of the good vill "by sollcltatioa 
of ouBtoraero, Trggo v. Hunt . IS Kng. Ruling C»s««, 442, 66 L. 
J. Chancery, 041; lianft v. B(g im ra . 20e 111. 366 j Von Byw»n 

▼ . S^RcHonnies . 20D Ji. Y, 41, 93 R. ' , 106, deos not ohtuin, 
citing Hanna ▼. Androw a. 50 la. 46^, and Cot trail v. Babcock 
Printing yreas Co.. S4 Conn. 122, 

the ccmtract should, if jioasible, bo so ccnstrotd an 
to giT« efft'ct to all ita t(;r»e. The intention of the |w rtie s 
aa g«,therad from the whole inetruraent snist control* gelthwan 

▼ . KichlcT . 265 111. 58». 

i^e oisnnot ignore the other expreas and affirnativa 
eoTenanis as above set forth, #ilch aKiet«vve think, lae sregarded 
as additional corensnta to the one whldi ie limited to the two 
year period. 

The principle aaena to he well aettled, that when 
a party aeUa an entablish^'d huainesa with the right to uae hia 
own nanr in connection therewith, h;? c>uinat afterwarda resuao 
the nane in carrying on the aium^ IniBinaaa. yr&aer v. Fraaer 
i,tibrici»tina Cp., X21 ill. 157; Mc?ell Sleotrje & Yelephone 
^* ■*• M eye 11 '•Electric Co., 110 111. App. 182. 

we think the ttiQta alleged in this hill ahow that 
tJ-ie iaisuing of tlie interlocutory in,1unotlon was within the 
discretion of the Chancellor. 

The order will be affizmed. 

MR. JV^llCBl BAlilfSa: 

I think the order too broad. I do not conatrue 
the contract in quetstion to prevent ap «liant from uning 
his own name in trie carpentry busineee after the tin« 
apecififrd, provided the rr.athod of its uae is not auch 
«a to create confusion or violate hie eorenaat reofKicting 
good will. But whether hf fficy use hia naae at all in ftudi 
bueineaa, and whether hia uwe thereof tead@ to create such 


confu!i!»lon or violatsa 'auch covenant, I cone'ilv^? to be different 
questions ps«»«i2itdd upon this rocar^l. 

438 - 34781 



) Appeal from 
} Circuit Court, 
) Cook County. 

' 2 1 6 T 



This «»a an action for nalicioua prosecution in vd&ieh 
a judgment was rendered for plaintiff (appellee) for |2,000 
after a remittitur of #3,000. Quilfoyle was arrested by a 
police officer on Krueger*s representationa and tal!»n to the 
police atatien eiiere in a Sew hear* he was released on bond. 
Later Krueger ewore out a ceaolaint. On the bearing before an 
exanining raagiatrate Ouilfoyle was discharged. 

Appellant urges that the rerdiot was launifestly against 
the weight of the e ride nee on the question of probable ctiuae for 
the criiBinal proceeding. The principal facts bearing on that 
feature of the ease are; 

Krueger was in the business of general adlling work 
and among other things aiade box spring fraaes for couches whieh 
he sold for 11.50 apiece, in August, 19C9, both Guilfoyle»s 
brother-in-law, John .N:cAuliffe, and his father-in-law were in 
Krueger* 8 eiaploy, the latter ss a watchman, the forsaer as 
operator of the machine th?.t rabbeted the frciiaes. Krueger had 
invent© 1 and used a cutter-head in his wferk by which the 
rabbeting was nade perfectly saooth. Its work was readily dl«* 
tinguishable from thet done usually by a wobble sow, whieh left 
rough edgss. One morning the latter part of August, 1909, 
Krueger missed about 300C feet of the leanuf actured lumber so 

^ r^ ^^ A 


rabbeidd \>y John ^cAuliffe which had b«en piled up in a pasftag** 
mgr the night hefor«, and spoke sbout it the next day to both 
MoAuliffe and his father. They claimed to ioiow nothing about 
how it dleappeared. Krueger reported the circwristaneee to the 
police station and requested that the patrol officer ktep a wateh 
around his place . A day or two afterwards John Jt'CAUlif fe quit 
his eaploy without notice or explanation, and he and Ouilfoyle, 
(itbo had been out of e^ployzeent for tha prerioue three weeks and 
prior to that tine waa a ealo»ii keeper mo@t of X,lm Osob) began 
auiking the same kind of fr&jaee and sold them to Krueger's cuetoiaers 
for 4C eentB less a frame. In the early part of October Krueger 
learning of these facts from certain of his eustois&rs who had pur- 
ehased froB them, and th^^t BcAuliffe h»d infors»d then th«.t he had 
gone out of business, ha inspected the frmasB a old to them by 
Guilfoyle and MeAuliffe and saw that the rabbeting on them was 
identical with that ssede by his inachine or device, which he alone 
used. He then reported these additional facts end cireumetanees 
to the lieutenant of police at sfiid station #10 assigned two 
polieenen to stake an investigation. Tliereupon they, with Krueger 
and on« Olsen in his employ, went to Guilfeyl«*8 yard and inspected 
the lumber he was using* fhey first met VcAuliffe. while oon- 
▼ersing with him Guilfoyle came forward and, as testified te by 
Krueger and officer i^imon, who made the arrest, told WcAuliffe to 
go back to his work or he would "put hie foot in it*, and that 
•whatever talking wj a done there he would do.* When Guilfoyle 
was asked if he made such a staterRent he said "I don't refflember," 
While the versions of their conversations as given by Krueger, 
Olsen and officer Simon differ materially from G .ilfoyle's, they 
are not specially material to determination of the question of 
probable couse. Krueger claimed to identify some of his lumber 
•aeng the pieces in auilfoyle's yard by the rabbeting, pointing 
out and explaining tf the officer the differenoo therein from 


th« other pieces that -were rabbeted 'by a wobble saw. The officer 
asked Gullfoyle if he had a bill for the lumber and testified 
that Guilfoyle replied "Hone of your business. This is ay 
property, the lumber is on my property rand if you are a police 
officer you know what to do*; and th^t the officer ttten 
"Well, if you can't tell us you will tell sooe one else". Jle 
testified that he thereupon told Guilfoyle to go to the station 
with him, end took him there to jm.)oe explanations to ti^ lieutenant 
of police; that in so doing he BOteA as a police officer on his om 
responsibility »»d reeeived no orders frcos Krueger as to the 
arrest, and that Krueger gave none* Later at the sugcestion 
ef the police Krueger swore out a complaint charging Guilfeyle 
with receiving stolen property. 

It is iiBssaterial to the q[uestion ef probable onust 
whether Krueger wss correct in his identification of property 
he found on Guilfoyle *8 preioisea, or that Guilfoyle was dis- 
charged on a hearing before the examining siagistrate . The 
question is whether or not all of the foregoing facts and cir- 
eumstanees furnished a probable cause for Krueger* s prosecution 
of the criminal action. If so, we need not consider the quest im 
of mmlioe, for an action for malicious prosecution will not lie if 
there is probable cause whether there be malice or not. ( iffaBlrey r. 
Catholic Press Co.. 254 111. 290; /jnes v. Snider , 69 id. 376.) As 
for probable cause, "All that is required is an honest belief, 
or strong ground of suspicion, of the plaintiff's guilt, and a 
reasonable ground of the belief or suspicion,* ( Harphao i et al. . v. 
Ihitriey . 77 111. 22, 4C) and we think the foregoing circumstanees 
furnished reasonable ground for honeat belief by Krueger not only 
that the property he so identified was rabbeted by his machine 
but th't it was stolen frwn his shop thr ough a criminal con- 
spiracy between McAuliffe and Guilfoyls. While Guilfoyle 



X9:St^fL4 Itut^jTMEv 



testifiod that h« purchased all of th&t lumber from a lumber 

concern and ha4 aoet of it manufactured by another milling 

coroppny -w find nothing persu&slTe in the evidence to refute 

Krueg©r*r contention that the style of rabbotincr on eoiae of the 

lur-ber in Guilfoyle'e y?«rd smd on the fr»B»8 sold by him to two 

of Krueger*e cuetoiaero cmld be done only by K.meger*e machinery. 

John iioAuliffe hiraeelf knew of no other ajBChine like it, and 

admitted that the luicber he rabbeted, whitSh Krueger epoke to hia 

pbout, was aieeiag that BBorning, and that he left Krueger'a ea^loy 

aljnoRt immedlntely afterworie, imd it waa Biftde to appear on 

plaintiff's cross exooiinfetien of Frueger that SHcAuliffe had nade 

a written confesBien ef guilt that was in the posMssion of 

plaintiff's attorney. 

It is significant that auilfeyle did not call John 

HcAuliffo as a witness, or Ifrtward Murphy (hereinafter referred 

to) to corroborate his lujeuptorted staterents- except as to 

malice - ^^a to whsst took place at the time of arrest. It is 

difficult to undtirstand idiy under audi circuroatances and evidence 

the Jury found for plaintiff unless because they learned that 

at the hearing of the criminal charge Guilfoyle was found not 

guilty. Ai stated in Palmer v. siichardaon . 7C 111. fi40: 

"It seeiBs to be difficult for a Jury to 
coDBprehend thst an innocent pereon may be 
arrested for a criminal offense, and at the 

Saras time t^ie law offers no redreos against 

the person ^ho caused the arrest and prosecution." 

the Terdict nay in part be accounted for by tbe numerous questions 
put by plaintiff's counsel on cross examination to lA|r a foimdatioa 
for l^^a«AuMmt that was never undertalan. fhese questions 
carried the insinuation that defendant's witnesses had testified 
differently at the other trials, and may perhaps have influeneed 
the Jury to believe such was the fact so long as defendant was 
not called on to deny the inferences. Good faith In putting so 

mtaxy questions of that character might well "be quostioned n^en 
thertt vaa no attenpt to prove ttny of the Infereneee tliey ««re 
de£lgn«d to carry. 

But there i» no question i» our minds as to the greet 
prsip on de ranee of eTidenee that in bringing the criiRinBl action 
ikru«ger acted in good faith on an honest helief of Guilfoyle'e 
guilt foundc'd on reaeonable grounds, and hence that there was 
ov<srwhelning proof of probable cause for instituting the crii8in«.l 

it appears that on two previous trials, a ^ury had 

brou^it in a verdiet for the plaintiff, and that the yerdicts had 

been set aeide by the trial judge. This court end the i:>upreizMi 

Couxv have eaid that where ''three juries have found the facts 

the saase way ' it seeas to be esdnently proper that there should 

be an eno to the centroversy so far as the facte are concerned." 

( Hinehcliff v, Hudnik . 212 111. 569.) fe recognize this to be 

the general rale . But we do not deem it so far mandatory that 

this court will not exereiee itts function and duty of examining 

into the sufficiency of the evidence when error ie asciimed 

tlxereoB and it finds the evidence so preponderant against the 

verdict that tc uphold it would not cnly result m a perversion 

of justice but t«»nd to deter citisens from instituting prosecutions 

for violations of laws of the land, ( i?' aimer v, Hichardaon . supra .) 

As said in ^ ^9 V. i>nidar « 68 111. 381: 

•=Vhere probable c/iu»e exists, the Jtste h ts 
a right to have every such case investigated. It 
is no longer a matter of private interest to the 
party v&io deerao himself injured, but it c.ncems 
public jui^tice and the general welfore, and the 
good citiscn haa no rii^iht to withhold the 
criminating evidence he may have in his posse scion."* 

Pew men would be willing to originate a criminal prosecution if 

after acting en an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds a 

failure to convict the fftccused subjected them to the annoyance 

and expense of an action lite thia, v!*ierein they might be imlcted 


by & sysE^athetie jury. 

It is urged, howerer, thf>t the evidence ia fiuf flcient 
to BtUBtain a Terdiet and jiadgnient for falee imprison/sent . i-iven 
If the decXAjraiien had been drawn » the cac^e tried and the Tcrdict 
based upon sutih a chArge, yet again the verdict oust be deeoed 
aaaifeetly against the preponderance of plaintiff's unsupported 
eTidenee that he we« arretted upon defendant's directions. The 
only persons present on that occasion who testified beside the 
plaintiff, were called by defendant, and supported in the aain 
defendant's denial of giving uny such directions. 

A significant fact, v^ioh we cannot overlook, bearing 
upon the oredibility of plaintiff* a version of i&at took place at 
the tine of the arrest, ia that on the tvo previous trials he 
called one Edward ^surphy to testify as to .^at then took place, 
and although Murphy liared only two doors froia him and was present 
in eourt at the time of the trial, he did not see fit to call 
hlB a^ain but relied wholly on his own recollection of testimony 
given for hin at the tonmx trials by a witness since deceased, 
tiAiose statements, (as testified to by plaintiff) were not only 
denied by defendant aiid some of his witnesses but whose very 
presene* at the tiae and place of arrest appears from the record 
to >iave been denied and brought seriously in question, ^ile 
an affiuiVit of Edward l&irphy to the effect that both his and 
the testissiony of the deceased witnetss given at the previous trials 
was suborned by Guilf oyle , was filed in support of a iBOtion for 
a new trial and cannot, of course, be considered in aoay other 
connection, yet the fact that he BSiade sudi an affidavit seems to 
explain why he was not called by pls-intiff as a ^tness. 

«hile we think the notion for a new trial on the 
ground of newly discovered evidence was properly denied in the 
absence of «ii\jr affidavit showing due diligence by defendant «md 

f..t^fPi* ? '.t^;f^« vk'i. 


tbat he was not epprised of the matte ra ctmtalned in ^iTphy^c 
affidaTit until after the trial, '*m c&rmot r^fid tS\i?. record 
without grave niagivings as to pXaintiff's good ffdth in hTinf," 
ing this action and as to the reiialsility t^f Xi\^ e^'idenoe 
adduced to support it. In this vie-vf of tJie Cck^e other points 
urged for reversal need not Iti aon&id.ert*d, bs c use the ^iuigroeint 
Biust he reverBcd with c finding of ff.cts. 

lffiV::;KSEi) \7IT1I FIS-'JXMG 0? FACT 3, 


428 • 24781 

vjxmm Of yACTs, 

W» find th«,t appelX(iXit, ^. . Krueger, fteted 
vxth probftbl* 0J&U9« In InstituliBe ft^saln&t app«ll«c^ 
Patrick Guilfoyle, the crislnal pitMWcutton referred 
tfi ia the d«elftratien, and th^t the arreal of appelXett, 
Pfttrlek OuilfoyX*, va» not mftde at th« dirsctloa of 
apEMftliant, *ra. ^. Krtt«g«<r, but T?holly upon tli« 
responsibility of » polioe offi«H»r or offic«r» aettn® 
in their offloi&X ottpaeity. 

App«al froa 

Munieipal Court 

a eorportJLtion, / ) of Cnieaigo. 

Appellant . y ) 

^ JL ^w^ -i- • ^^ ® **^ ^^ ^^ 


fhis «u8 «a action upon a coatrixot dated Jftnuary 11, 
1916, ealling for delirary frost api eliaat to appellee within 
3C days of a oertain qusuitity of flour and me^l . For failure 
to deliver the saioe plaintiff (the appellee) el»l8»d daosages. 
A ^ury vas «alv«d &nd the finding and judgment were in 
sppellant'e ftivor for |3M,6«^. 

A preponder^Aoe of the evidence suatains the defence 
tliat B«tjr only the oontrsct «»w cancelled purouant to one of it» 
expresu proritirms \»ut also by nutual consent* The latter fact 
waa sustained hy two unircpeached s'lt/iesiieB sm ag^^iaet plain*' 
tiff's unsupported denial #iich was iiapairod by his contradictory 
evidence, s^d the adsiesion that tm told the ealeaoian that "he 
B«ed not »end this flour*" 

But regardless of the weight of evidence on that 
point the caaoellDttien wae duly exereised* The can tract wae 
subject to th« rules md provisions of tiie "universal sales 
contract* of the United iitates Food Administration irtiich wns 
■ade a part thereof. One provision was that *if the buyer 
♦ * • failed to file with the seller within 15 days of the 
order, shipping instructions perisltting thf seller to ship 
at his option within the reim*ining period of the contract * • « 
then the seller may, at his option, and upon notice to the 
buyer, cancel this contract.* 




Oa Jimuary 20, 17 day* after tha date of the ord«r, 
t.o*«it» JxDQUftjry 11, th« tftl««K«t sxpreesljr a«feid for inttrueticms 
«ad plaintiff refuaed and f&ll«d to giY« them. This is not 
denied* On Jtunm^Tf Z9 mppttiXtmt s^led app«lJL«o notice &f it« 
e«neexlHtien of t>}« contract* Th« r<%celpt of thst netieo wsto 
not d(mi«d. 

Appellee's pee It ion i» that beeattee a^ellnnt^s let ti»r 
•f oonfins^tion wa^e d»t«d January 14, the? o»no&Xi^tion» being 
wltnin fifteen da./e fro» the latter date, vme proBif»ture* TJtai 
lotter coaof ir»ed the can tract i^b dated and did not oh»ae;e or 
effect XfiVtM and provieione t]3,«r«?of ex^prees^ljr relating to 
the date of the Inetruaent. !!«?tioe the undlsputeci f^^ct is thai 
aptpelleo did not file svdpping instructions *f»ithin lf> d&ya of 
the dato of the order*, by ra^ami of which the cancellation »fv» 
BMa as «uthcEri2»d« 

But the proof eJLeo unqtteetionably eho«e appellee's 
consent t?» nn^ noQuioacence in th<i can cell eti en; &nd there ^^e 
ao proftf thwt he ev^.r fil«ft3 shijjping ini$ true t lone «•-« he we re- 
quired to <io, or wi » ready, able or willing to accept a delivery. 
Accordingly the JU(Jlg;iMmt «dll be roT«srt@d iiii^i n finding of 

SifII»^& WI7H ^lISDlfiO OF fACT. 


447 • S4800 

fI8i>]JI0 Oy 9ACftm 

i'e find tbAt app«ll^ni. The liew Century Con^Kny, 
wsM not guilty of a breadt of th« contract »uedi on, sjod 
that t^polle«, J . Le?iaon, failed to file shipping inotrue* 
tieniB vritti 3Hid ai>j;H»li.<mt witbin the tino required by et^id 
eontr&ct, etnd that by reason of euoh failure said appellant 
upon notice thereof given to appellee exercised the option 
given in the contract to o^neel »&i4 eontraot, and that 
appellee cmiSQnted to and acquiesced in such cancellation* 

495 • 24849 


aaiC S. aKCGLUHi), / ) ©f Chicago. 


Appttllant aued ap;)«llee to recover coisBsissions as a 
real astaie broker, oXaiming a contr uict of ageney to find a 
purchaser for appeXlee*s property at the price of $20,000, 
and th«t he found a custoraer ready, willing and aT&le to purchase 
it at sueh price. The case wp>a heard without a jury and the 
issves were found for defendant. 

The only queetiwi presented on th- record is one of 
faet, nai&ely, whether there m,,s a contract of agwicy. It is 
only when the preponderance of evidence ie ?ranlfeatly against 
the vffiTdict or finding beion* th&t this court will dinturb the 
conclusion of fact reached in the trial court. A careful 
exBSiination of the record reveals no Manifest preponderance 
of evidence for the plaintiff, as appellant contends. The 
evidence is such tliat a court idigjit readi » conclusion either 
way according to the seight given to the different statements 
of the respective parties ana the evidence offered in support 
of each. 55ut as the versions of the ronver sat ions had between 
the parties when it is claiiued the contract of agency was made 
and whffli no other person was present are emtirely different 'Vi 
the question au to wieth^" th^re was ouch a contract, and a« 
there is no direct corrobcaratlve proof of the testimony of 
either of thm^ on thiit quefttion, and as the trial court had the 
superior advantage of seeing and heorini; all the witnesses, we 
cannot say that the evidence is so wanifeutly prepondersnt 
against defendsnt's version of the trflnsaction as to Justify 



• disturbane* of thtt judgment. 

ReediiaK this conclusion there is no practioad purpose 
to lie subserred in detailin^^ the various features of Uie evidence. 
Suffice it to say that while defendant was lapparently willing to 
••11 for the price stated and so indicated both to plaintiff and 
his custQxQer, that fact ia not inconsistent with a want of plain* 
tiff's authorized agency to act for deff^dunt, ^ereas there is 
on apparent inconsistency tiiat de fondant would hare entered into 
a contract of agene to iaell his prcperty at a ti»e when, as 
disclosed by the evidence, there was another subsisting contract 
that gave another party an interest in t e land, and the can- 
cellation of which defendant subsequently secured before he 
aetaally negotiated a eale of tl^ property. 

Ho questions of law were raised, k@ appellant argues, 
by the refussil of the court to hold as a proposition of law either 
that plf«intiff was entitled to recover or that the d 'if en dan t was 
Indebted to . ia for a specific sum. Whether he was entitled to 
recover or defendsmt was so indebted was the issue af fact raised 
by the pleadings. These so-oadled propositions of l&w presented 
no distinct principle of law for application to the evidence heard 
upon th;>t JBSue . 

The Judgment will be affirmed. 


43 - ZABQZ 

OF ILLlUQli^, 

Petendent in Err|&r, 

Vunicipal Court 
of Ghieago. 






Plaintiff in error wns convicted and fined upon an 
inforatcaion intended to be based on i^at is designated as 
section 17, chap, llli, Hurd»B mr. t>tat. Kd. 1917, under 
the head of "Public Health". That section provides that the 
landlord, keeper, miinager or clerk of every lodging house, 
hotel, etc., "shall keep in the office, or other public place 
ther-ein, a register in which shall be entered the nsjm and 
residence of eyery person who becomes a lodger, boarder or a 
guest in said lodging house" etc., and prescribes wdiat such 
x^gister shall show. It further provides: "Such register 
shall always be accessible, without charge, to any officer 
or duly authorised a ;ent of said State Board of Health", and 
that any landlord, etc., of such lodging house, etc., violating 
any of the provisions of the section shall be decwed guilty 
of a misdemeaBor, and liable to a prescribed penaltJT* 

Section 2 of the Act makes it the duty of "all » • ♦ 
polloe officers, sheriffs, constables « * « to enforce the rules 
and regulations that may be adopted by the iitate Board of Health 
for enforcing the laws in regard to public health." 

The informtntion charges that plaintiff in error Hioe, 
being a clerk of a certain hotel in ChiosiRD, "did then and 
there unlawfully f«il, neglect and refuse to keep a register 
of said hotel in an acceb.-ible pU ce to police officers. 



contrary to the form of th« •i«tat«'*, Rtc; tmcl plaintiff in 
error «rae fmind "gallty in B»nn«r asd ferm »» «laai^ed ia ttoo 

It is eontendt«A, ?tndi rightly» we think, that the 
iiifor»«>tiim does not aharg» «» vif^lation of 5«ny proTiaioB ©f 
■B.i(t sGctlcm 17 • 1106 statute requirctQ the' .hotctl register ¥• 
tept "in th« ~fric« or other public pl-oe Uierein", and 
provides that it shall be aooossibls, withoiHt charge, to tmf 
officer or duly authorized a^nt of tJte i^iate B^^sNi of Hsalth* 
1h« iafermrtion lioes not dtinr^i: tUut a registitr wme not so 
kept but merely th&t it v&s kept "in «n in»ccessil»l« plaae to 
the police offiGcrs." Lnder the lftngu«i,43,^* of the infomss^tion 
e*«n if the regioter w » kept in th«j offias of th@ hotel yet 
unlegrt it ■xt\» so pieced therein m to be acceo^ihle &t all 
tiices t© the police officers without m'ty request f»r its 
production the Ifmdlsrd or clerk would be suh^cct to & petjalty. 
^ do not 80 interpret the sttstute. It is the imtnifest intent 
of the ot»tute that the periioaa re^?uir«?<li to keep mieh a register 
fits deetg^Jftted shall render it &eeeo®lhle to the proper csffieers 
whencv«p r required by them in the p€?rforTr>aja€« of their dvtiee in 
enlercing the rules i&md regulations of the •^iste Bos.rd of 
Eeslih. But the language of the infornu tlon io bro»d enough 
to cover a situation where the register is teasper&rily plseed 
in & vault of Buoh office, we apprehend thi^t If it were so 
pl&cad it wciuld not be recard^d u%i inaccessible unl®«e there 
was s refusal t© produce it. It i» «ot Bttffiei*?nt» tharefoxw, 
to ohiirge thr.t it wias not i^pt ''in »m Rf.cesalble plftoe**, nor 
to Btate thfcit it wt>u not «ccee»ibie to ♦•police officers" with- 
out it sppearljie fux-ther that aooeas i«ft» denied to the* while 
perforffiing the duty of enforcing a i"ule or regulation of eaid 
i^t&te Bo%rd of Health for enforcing ti:ae law. BecfeUiJfi there 

dlCii nt -i-te".' ^ iSU, 

ii> iOt^tfi 


can be no convietion upon auch tm in form ti en the judgment 
will be r«Tftra«d. 


476 - 24832 



Appeal from 

v«. \ / ) l^uniclpal Court 

of ChieagO. 
ST. BifUi£lAaD»Si HGTJSL OIBO, / ) 

^'^^- ' 216 I.A, 629 


This !• fioi appeal from a judgment of the llunicipal 
Court of Ghicftgo for ^2,200, rendered April l<i, 1918, aft«r 
verdict, ^gainut the iefendant, at. Bernard's Hotel Dieu, a 

The motion iu one of the first cla«s in aasuapsit i 

com>iienced on August 18, 1.14. In plaintiff's stateiwnt of 

claim it is alleged that hia da^ra ia for 02,200, Iseing a 

l)alance due for certain plans, specifications and neoaesary 

details furniahod by him for the erection of defendant's 

building, St. Bernard's Hotel oieu, in Chicago, Illinois, 

and for superintending the r^rection of seid building, according 

to a certain contract (a copy of T<*iich is attF.ched and naade 

a part of the stateirent of clwina and marked "exhibit A") which 

said contract waB signed by f other Anne Hopkins, president of 

defendant, and which said work and serrices were fully perforined 

by plaintiff and were accepted by defendant; and th&t by said 

contract defendant was to pay $40C0and did pay plaintiff on 

account |180C. Said "Exhibit A" is as follows: 

•*i>t. Bf-raard's Hotel Dieu, 

6353 Harv«srd Avenue, 

ChiCAMvO, 111., Aug. 20, 1904. 
For and in consid^'^&tion of furnishing plans, 
specifications snd necee ary details for th« 
construction of 3t. Bernard's Hotel ieu, located 
at the east side of Harvr-rd Ave., just north of 
Sixty-fourth street in the City of Chicago, County 
of C ok and state of Illinois, and also for 
superintending the construction of saws I hereby 

^'>. e> 


agree to pay Pour Ihousand Dollira - TO-wit:» 
Twenty-five Hundred for plans, speclficfttiono 
and necessary detj-ils and Fifteen Hundred for 
i^uperintendence, Ihis contract Is mxsa -with 
the understanding thtt there shall "tae no extras- 
plans or drnwingn for ecal abed and om. story 
over laundry, if desired neceesary, telng 
included above, else any other changes. 
Mother Anne ?lopkins, Pres," 

In defendant's afiidavit of rcerite, filed October 26, 
1914, asoong BeverBl defenses set up Ih that if such fm instrument 
binding on defandfmt was in fact nade (irhich was denied} any 
recovery thereunder is barred by the statute of liBiitatione. 

On Eovember 9, 1916, answers under oath by the secretary 
of defendant, Sister Unry * elly, wore filed to certain interrogatories. 
In which it w»» stated that Mother Anne iiopkins wa» president of 
defendant ©n august 20, 1904; that defendant in the early part of 
the year 1914 first ascertained the>t Mother Anne liopkins had Bigned 
the instruBwnt referred to in plaint If f'e statercent of claiia as 
JSxhibit A; that defendant's bonka show that plaintiff was paid the 
sum of il,QOO but that affiant does not know wi-uxt for; and that 
affiant does not know whether or not plaintiff w«b the architect of 
defends!^ t'B building. 

On March 19, 1918, the cause was called for trial. 
Plaintiff's attomsy stated th«t he desired to file, as a part of 
Exhibit A to plaintiff's stateisent of claim, "a copy of an InBtrument"; 
iriiereupon plaintiff, over obj ction, was given leave to amend said 
JSxhibit A, and defendant' » attorney stated thst he desired that 
defendoit's affidavit of merits theretofore filed, stand to said 
amended etateraent of claim, and an order wis entered to that effect. 
It docs not appear from the transcript of the record, however, that 
any anienciBsent to i&xhibit A of plaintiff's stateoent of clalic was in 
fact filed. 

Plaintiff testified that he was a licensed architect in 
the year 1904, that during that year he had bueinese dealings with 

';6 !;■;■.:■•. ^i.-: 

Mother Anne Hopkins, president of defendant, and with ?ath«r 
B«mfiTd ?. Sairray, tne of the director*; that on august 20, 
19(<4, he signed fe certain paper and gave it to Bother Hopkins, 
and thst alio signed another pspex ;^jnd gave it to hiui, a copy 
of whioh l»st mentioned paper is atts^ohed to the eiatenent of 
elalir as "alxhioit A." I'laintiff *s attorney then requested 
th»t defendant produce the original of that psper which the 
witnesB B.iid he had signed and given to Mother Hopkins, and 
defendfint's) .itt0i*aey rcplitsd that defendant did not have, and 
never had, &jiy such p«|>&r. i'ia.intiff was tlicn shown ® paper 
and f>aked if Uiat wae "a copy" of the instrument rf^ferred to, 
and he replied that it wae. He further testified that suhseoutnt 
to August 20, 1904, he made plan», specifications and details for 
defendfint*s building and aupervieed the conotruotion thereof; 
that he had been pisrtly p&id for nia work by three checks drawn 
by defeadeat, aggregating the aum of il800. Thereupon plaintiff's 
attorney offered in evidence tlie original paper, dated August 20, 
1904, t^nd 3i(gi«d '..ot;.<^r Anne iiopkina, Free.", and also "the copy" 
of the inBtruiaent, tJ-ie original of which jlaintiff testified he ea 
August so, 1904, had tsigned a.d delivered to Mother Hopkins, and 
said papers were marked for identification as plaintiff's ^^xhibits 
A, 1 and A, 2, respectively. Thereupon defendant's attorney was 
allowed to cross examine plaintiff and plaintiff testified, in 
substance, that his name was not signed to the plans; that he had 
the plans snd specifications drawn by Richard A. Schmidt; that 
Joe iichweitaer, who m*s then v^orkin^ for plaintiff, aigned the 
plans as architect; thnt plfaintiff let one contract, the mas on 
contract, to Frank Burke, in which contract, signed by Kother 
Hopkins and said Burke, plaintiff's naree appears as "the architect"; 
that ?8ther Murray l«t the other contracts; that plaintiff 
supervioed tlie erection of the building and way nt the building 


prsctically every day; tt^at during Ue tiiw the laxilding wn» being 

erected, h<^we cr, he was in th« >^irtpioy of the city of Chicago, in 

the building department, and drawing o ej^lrry; th^t one George Bondry, 

ef plaintiff's office, actually super in tesnded the «rection of the 

building and wae on the premises all the time; that the building 

was fully ccmpieted in the spring of 1905; that plaintiff had heard 

that Mother H pkina had died in the jcex 19C8, • nd that hekiew that 

ji'ather iiiurray aliso had cii«4 ab^nt a year prior to thi:« trial; that he 

does not know irhen the instruiwnt , *«;>dh,ibit A, 2" «'.'?r rB;«le or who 

ffiade it; that he dictated it ''froin isewiry*, 8on«r>tiiW) luring the year 

1514, about the time this suit was started, to his &ttornoy, Mr, 

K&rtigan, that *»» far as he knows* Kr, Kgrtigan atrote it dorm as Ym 

dictated it; th«t after the period of ten .7f;ftrs riince he caw the 

original, h© dictated it **pfi nftr ' be could think of it." 

Def end^snt' B attomay ohjeted ^n rarioub grounds to the 

introduction in eyidence of " :xhi>)it A,l"i?nd "Exhibit A, 2", but all 

objections were overruled and the r^P®i*s rerc . ^Imitted in evidence. 

••iiijihibit A 1,* as introduced, corresponds with the; copy above set 

forth ..s ".exhibit A in plaintiff's statement of claim, and "Sxhibit 

A, 2" is as follows: 

••Aug. 30, 19v04. 
For and in conaider? tion of ?our Thousand 
Lollare, . hereby apree to fnmish plans, 
specif iCf- 1 ions r..tx(i neeeatiary details for the 
construction of ot. f' mnx^* n Hot?, i Dleu, 
locutted hX thfi east side of Hprv;ird Ave., just 
north of Jixty- fourth street an the City of 
Chicago, wouiity of Cook, mic. ^tate of Illinois, 
and also superintend the construction of same- 
to-wit: Iwenty-f ive Hundred for plams, specifications 
and nj^cesaary o^^tails iind Fifteen Hundred for 
:>>uperintendence. '/his contract is k de with the 
understfjnding that there siiali «e no extras - 
plans or drawings for coel shed or one story over 
laundry, if -ieeired n«cess-^iry, being included 
above, aliso any otHer changes. 

(Signed) Andrew P, Hughes.* 

Several vyitnesses w-sre called by dnfondant. "^'heir 
testimony, except tiiut of Mr. iSdward '\. Hartigan, ettornoy for 


plt'iintiff, we deojrt ynneeess^ry to jiicmtloM. Ut , Hertlgan testified 
thbt Bb "ut one aionth before tha trial hie etenograph«r raade tYve 
inetruient ' xJiitit A 2''; 'iid lYn-t she copied ii frtna a paper 
which ha gare her, 

it the cloaa of aii the evidence ft motion for f directed 
verdict .tor dofendajat waa made and denied. The jury r& turned a 
Yordict ag&lnut defend«mt, aa«des&lng plaintiff's dantages ^^t the sun 
of $2,200, upon whioh vttrdiut tm judgment appealed frons was entered. 

MR. JUi^TICa GHIDMY IMhrfSB^D fW. OP IB I DM OP 7m Qomf , 

fe are of the opinion that plaintiff's action is barred 
hf the 8t?.tut'5 of Iti&itations, Section 15 of the Limitations Act 
provi iei>; "Actions on unvfritt««n contrftcts, expressed or implied, 
* * r.nd ftll civil actions not otiierwise provided for, shall "be 
coarceno^^d r.ithin .five y^nru next after the oauae of action aoorued." 
iaection 16 of said Act provides: "Actions <m hcmds, promissory notes, 
hillD of exchange, written ie ojes, written cwtracts, or other 
evidoncea of inlo'otedness in vxriting, shall i)« cowmen ced within ten 
years next after the cauuw of action accrued,* I'laintiff 'r. action 
■m&a ewroenced on August 18, 1914. 'ihe insitruiJsent sued on (a copy of 
which was fittachod to thfj 3t«teBi«nt of clniia as "Kxhibit A*, and 
the '-riginnl introduced in evidence ns * xhibit A, 1") is flated 
August P,C, 1004, wor r.ught thf;t appears to the contrary in this 
record, plaintiff u cause of action, *.f any he hfd, accruad upon 
the eoRjilotion Of the building mentioned, -Wiieh Ute evidence dis- 
cloBes w.')e coHpleted in the Spring of 19^5, tJnlesn said inetruiaent 
can be coneidernd as n written contr c*., or oth*»r evidence of 
indebtadnesD in wrriting, Ball »ction is berred by section 15 of the 
Limitation \ct. In Son due to r< .-. Benefit Asaoci'ition v. Loomis ^, 142 
111. 560, 567, it is e^-,Ui 



"A Witt?-!! contract la one, which, in all its 
teras, is in vriting. A contract partly in writing 
and partly oral i», in legal effect, an oral contract. 
(Bishop on Contractis, teeB. 163, 164) "* ■* A contract 
cannot "be ufiid to "be in writing, unleoe the parties 
thereto, ae well as the terrr»8 end provlaiona thereof, 
con he aseertainsd frf»n the Instruinnnt its"elf • If 
the party to a written oontrnct is not named therein, 
the conlr"Ot is (ief<»ctiTe a« containing only a psart 
of the a.'reenent. In such case, the agreeiRent ie only 
partly reduced to wtitXmj;, because parol proof aauat 
he resorted to, in order to show with whom the bargain 
fas JSRde. ♦ * In Plumb v, i:aiEpbell . 129 111. ICl, 
the instrument, hel<^ io )oe a written contract, con» 
tained the names of both the partioe thereto* In 
Amea y. Moir , 130 111, r)82. One of the reaaOBB, given 
f^or holding tiie inatrument therein aet forth to "be 
a written contrrjct, was stated as followe: • ?r«B 
the face of the paper the parties to Uie ccntctict 
are plainly indicated** * * In Plumb v. Caggbell, 
euprn . we said: 'If it be true tSTt~The agreeTient, 
as set forth in writing, is so indefinite as to 
necessitste resort to perol teeiimony to rcake it 
coB^lete, the law is, that, in applying the .statute 
of Limitations, it naifit be treated ?^e an oral contrjict.*" 

Tested by the rules above set forth, we do not think the 
instrument sued on can "be said to be a written contract. It does 
not contain the names of the parties thereto. Plaintiff's name 
is nowhere mentioned therein. And it does not on its face disclose 
any indebtednee^ to plaintiff, or to whom the sums of money 
Ciontioned are to be p«ia . Ihile the name "St. Bernard's Hotel Bleu" 
appears, defendtnt's nRH» as a pa.rty does not appeisr. The inetrument 
"is BO indefinite v.s to neceseitate resort to parol testimony to 
make it coirgslete." 

Plaintiff did net conunenee hie action until nearly ten 
years after the inBtrument eued on "Kxhibit A, 1", wa« signed 
by the president of defendant, Bother Anne HcpkinB, eutid about six 
years after she had departed tliis life* Althoui^. the action was 
cemireneed on August 16, 1914, for 8oa» rtiasen it was not tried 
until karch 19, 1918. During the interral Father I^rray, who, 
according to plaintiff's testimony, had let all but one of the 
oontraots for the building, had also passed awagr. Or the day 


■-.<t:-: :"S 




of th« trial plaintiff, over the objection of defendant's attorney, 

obtained leave to aBend **Kxhibit A" of his atateB!i«it of clajji (which 

ims a copy of the instrun^nt he h^ originally sued upon) by adding 

thereto "a copy** of another instruiBent. fhis, f^n it seem to ua, 

had the effect of their stating a new cause of action on two 

instruiBents, instead c,f the one, both of w^iieh apparently were 

executed en the eaae day, August 20, 1904, and which plaintiff's 

attorney t/>en contended should be construed tog* ther as on* 

instrument. This new action was cois«enoad on the date of the 

anendraQnt, Uardh. 19, 1918. For aught that appears to the contrary 

froB the STidenco, plaintiff's cause of action on the two 

instrxusents (if cone trued together ^is one contract) accrued upon 

the conflation of defendant's building, which, aa disclosed by 

the evidence, was eonpleted in the i^prlng of 1905, His new action 

on the two iastnuEffinte was, therefore, not coimfienced until laore 

than ten years after the sajse had accrued, and is barred by section 

16 of the Liniitations Aet. 

And, even on the assunption that the amendment c(xild 

properly relate batt|: to the day the suit was originally conHnenoed, 

we think that plaintiff's action is barred, for the reason that 

th« alleged original instrument, claimed to have been signed by 

plaintiff on .iugust f!C, 1904, was not produced, and its 

connection with the original instrument, "-"xhibit A, 1", had to 

be supplied by the oral testifflony of plaintiff. Furthermore, 

plaintiff attempted to prove *a copy" of the alleged original 

instruBsent, but the paper produced was not sufficiently shown 

to be a copy. ( Pupuie v. fetcCaualand , 1 111. App. 395, 398.) 

The evidence disclosed that, about ten years after plaintiff 

laBt sew the alleged original instrument, he "from roemory* dictated 

a copy of it, "as near as lie could think of it," to his attomeyj 





that "as fax as hm kDOwe" eadd »ttom«y wroia it down as ht 
dictated it; that about a month bafore the trial said attomaj*s 
stenographi«r copied the contents of a certain papev vdiieh said 
attorney had given her. The testimony failed to show th&t the 
words dictated *frem memory* by plaintiff were correctly 
transcribed by uaid attorney, or that the words contained in 
the paper handed to said stenographer were correctly copied ty 

The judgment of the >mniclpal Court of Chicago 
it reTersed* 



V»* \ } Circuit Court, 

Cook County. 

CBICAGC ^ih^rst ^ommr i 

and CKXCAaO Ciir i^AXL«AY 


This is ttn appecil frorr. b Judgment of the Circuit 
Court cf Cook County far $2000, rendorod after Terdict, in an 
«%ction for dBSBH&sa for personal injuries rncelTod l»y plaintiff 
on the evening of July 17, 1915, fron the collision of plain- 
tiff *8 autonwblle, w^uoh he was driving, with a stre«t ear of 
defendants at the Intersection of "^stem e-renue and i^3rd 
street in the ^ity of Chicago. 

l^etern arenue la a north ?ind south »treet, on wilch 
aire two tracks of viofendants* railway, northT>«ttnd cars heing 
operated over the east track and southbound cars ov«»r thfi west 
tracK. 23rd street is sn east and tiost stre^st and crosses 
Vostem avenuo at right nngles. The next street B»uth of 23rd 
street Is 23rd place. As stated toy plsintiff's witnesses, the 
width of 23rd street froro curb to curb is 40 feet, end tho 
width of the oidewulk on the south side of that street ie 
about 14 feet, e© it ap ears that 23rd street, from the snuth 
to the north tuildinK line, Is about 6Q feet wide, the 
distance froiB the west curb line of if^etem arenue to tho Mst 
rail of the southboijuad track is about 18 feet. On the south- 
««at comer of :^3rd street and Western avenue ia a three story 
building., extending south nearly to 23rd place, ©n the north- 

fi^a oiaoJL ^ x^ 

east corner ie a saloon, In front of which on Ke«tem atvnus 
is & water trough, about 25 fset north of th« corner, ihe 
aeeidont h/appcned about 0:45 o'clock In the erenlng. It was 
dark. At the northeast comer of the inte n»«»ctlwi of the two 
8trc€it» thpre was an are street light, then burning and throwing 
a cirotiler light on the street. Between 23rd street and 23rd 
PXhc» there were no street lights, but at th« comer of Western 
avenua and 23rd place there was a similar aro iig^t. 

On the triifil plaintiff and two wltnessaa testified in 
his behalf. Plaintiff testified in substance that about a week 
preTloue to tlrie accident he had purchased the autoisob lie , which 
was » fire passengt r tourin^j car and «;.» the first he hs.d ever 
•waei^i that he wsis driving, s<?ated <m th« right front seat; thnt 
on hie left was John fehr, rjtd on the back seat were John Stark 
and Celia ^tark; that us he approached Western avenue he was 
driving east oa ']<*irti street, ab <ut 6 feet north of the south 
curb, and had flowed down to a speed of about 6 miles per hour, 
but that he at no tiae atopped; that when he had ''just cleared** 
the three story building he looked to the north and then to the 
south; that wlien he looksd to the south, the fi ret time, he was 
ab'^^ut even ^th the w«st curb line of Western avenue, and he saw 
a street oar with headlight bU3ming approaching from the south, 
about 176 feet fiway, but could not tell how fast it mm Rioving; 
th»t when he looks c! to the south, the second tlsm, his atttoaobile 
was en the southbound track and the street car was about 125 feet 
away; that then he proeee^ed to cross the northbound track; that 
he knew the street ear was coming but thought he "had ample tins 
t« cross"; th<^t he again looked to the north joid then to the 
south, for the third tirap, tmd the street cor whs "alswet on top 
of him« " and at tht^^t tiar the front whael of the automobile had 
jUBt croseed the east rail of the northbound track; that he turned 



the ctutoaobile *elightly north** and the next Instiint it Tma hit 
•.bout in ita canter and knocked northeast about XO or 13 feet, 
end then ma hit "by the street ear a eecqod tifne aai then he 
becaae unocniHCious; that when he recovered oonwciouanese he was 
in the saloon at the northiK&»t corn«r and he Sftw the mxx»mo\>il&, 
bfvdly B«isehed, strains t the water trough; nnd ths«t he could stop 
his autoiEOlDile "in nb Jut ei^^ht fe€?t when it let going at six olles 
an hour". It appears that about thre« weeks mfter the accident, 
and before the cocRtififeneenrnt of the suit, plaintiff raado &n 
appXierition to secure sick benefits fro» a certain beneficiary 
asaoeiatidn, in whieh appXlcatifm it is utrxte.^ ov^r hi» signature, 
in part: "ihen X reached ^JSestem at©., I saw a southtouad 'Astern 
Av« . Gix coming* I alo««d up and waited untiX it pmssod and then 
started on crossing Vestem *ve. I also sjiw u northbound v^efttern 
ATe . oar about 125 feet south af '^3rd street. I haTing the right 
•f way and thinking the notoriaan would slow up his car euffieientXy 
to aXXonf mm to crass X kept on crossing the street.** 

John Btark, pXaintiff*s brother>in>'Xaw and a passenger 
in the automobiXe, testified in part th&t when the autcmobiXe was 
approaching Astern avenue it w»b ab~ut € feet north of the ^^(nith 
curb Xine of 33jrd street, nrid moving east ab-^ut 6 or 7 miXes an 
hour; th«t after it had passed the buiXding on the aouthwsst 
earner he Xooked to the aouth and saw the hendXight of a street 
ear; thf.t the car "just had pastsed under the X4i^t at 33rd pXacej*; 
that pXalntiff "kept right (m going*; that just ao the autonebiXe 
was about to cross the wouthbouad track he Xook^d to the south 
agKia t»nd the street c«r w s then, he supposes, about 7fJ to 80 
feet ttway; th t when Vim automoblXe was about in the middle of the 
northbound track he again looked and the ear ws» "right on top 
of us**; that at this titne the nutomobiXe was going about 
in the saae Xine, about S feet nor^ of the snutb curb line of 
23rd street; thrt tl-ie ear hit the automobiXe about in tha 

-a^^mS Sim 


center, eirung it to the nerthweat and then hit it s/rain; th«t 
plaintiff wfis throvn outj Us;jt the autcwobile headed far th« 
northwest corner, ynd tht witness juiqped, »nd ee hi» did bo it 
hit th« curb cm tii« west side ef $«etem avenue, tumad smund, 
re creased the street nd eumt to a standstill, f feeing south- 
ei&Bt, Ggainst the w&tf'tr trr^ugh in front of the ^^iloon. John 
E«i8ten, 1*10 hiippened to be walking north on the west eidi? of 
•ietem •▼enue ft^<»ut »<" feet south of ?3rd etreet at the tiice of 
the aocident, te&tified in ptrt thst when he? firpt noticed the 
^itomobile it wfc.8 eib<T*t even with the wtet ourb line of feets'm 
ftvenue; that it wnfc golni', eest sad moving Bbout 7 er 6 mllep pn 
hour; that ^u^X after he enw it a str^^et mtr panised hlm# goini? 
north -t about %.o or 2S mlleB p#»r h'^w; th t thi? c^r Btnaclc the 
autoaobile about in it ^ c«nter and knocked it towprde the north* 
weet, «nd then hit it ogiUn; thf: t th« firot collision occurred 
about in the center of 25pd Bti««?t and plslntiff was th«n thrown 
out, but th t "**<» picJoBd the aan up between Vtie tvro tracks, in 
the center of ©eotem avenue, ani about 20 or S5 feet, I should 
think, north of eard »tm;'t,'» 

Defendnnta' veroion as to how the sccilent happ<»ned, 
supported by the testimony of several wi1aMHBe«B, Is to the eff«et 
•that i*ien the northbound street car w^e stbout in the Ttid^le of 
23rd street, jsoving 13 milce an hur oar lees, the aMtr>iBOhil«» «a» 
approaching *e8tem sTonue, gotne saat, ^ t a high rftt«» of p-^ed, 
and th»t, i*xen the front vwstibul© nf th*- car had j>aM»«A the 
north cro8»wBik of 33rd street, the autoioaobile, turning towards 
the north, r^sin into the west side of the cer, bounced baok, 
turned around behind the cu- imi finnllj? ran risainrat the water 
trough where it stopped. This version is also supported by the 
condition of the stroot e.r afte?* the acci'^sent, n photonrrsph 
of which ia in the record, and which photograph. It is stated 
by several witnessea, corr'sctly represents th&^t condition as 

■ <r>i |f/'"r (^ ff 


t403l« brolwa In the left side beck of iYw vc-t^tlbule doora, the 
grab- iron Wok of iiixid c'eoira feaie bent, a journal ljox-cov«»r v^« 
off, oaA there wtto no app^^rent daisiig« i f> the front of th« cnr. 
The conductor ef tha car, Uc, 9S9, tssstlflai tfe t 's^i^n h« took 
it froM the bitrn, abiut 3 ©•clock in the sftanaooa, it was 
thea in good o(mciition. 

Cf oourao, if (tef enclj*ttt8* vereion of the prccldent la 
the correct ooac , plaintiff o,mnot r^enver nn noocunt nf big 
nogligeaee. And ftv-an on his own Y©rai«?n nlaintiff, in ©wr 
opinion, waa juilty of such eontribatoty maEii8<*nee «« prewnta 
hia recovery. Ha testified that -^t th» gpoed Ma automobile 
«*a going ahortly before the aoclctent he eottld rttop it in about 
eight feet; that ha saw the c«r appro aching; «»n«J thrt he thought 
he *hftd aaple time to orows*. He rould heve stepTtedl hia «utonoblle 
before getting on the northbcuna trrftk, but he took hia clwncea 
an? felteicpted tt croes the treck ri4;ht in the pipthway of the 
oncoming ear. ( Kedrsark v, Chicj,.go ?..v.ilw.\yt', Co «. \P2 111, App. 
i>S4j licck y. Chicago h Ifiterurbap Traction Co .. 201 111. App, 
B72j F.Ob cr to v. ChiCc^^:o Cjtj^ ^. Cig.. 2er? 111. 2^, 3»1.) 

Itie juiignstnt of the Circull Cr«rt ia rereraed, 


'i>'i'*f. 'ili-i 


493 . 24d4« 


Wt find, as an ttltitiaU fuct, thet plaintiff 

'«»• a^ulXty of nfisils6no« which sontriiiutaa i-o hia Injuries. 


507 • 24861 


(jhicaoo railways coir^Y, 

A|»p(lllfi«* jf Appeal froB 

Circuit Court, 
Cook County. 


By this ai»ip««X defendant tieekd to rev(^r6« a jud(p«nt 
for 12400 in faHor of plaintiff In an nction f9r damages far 
personal injuries. 

Plaintiff's declaration eonsists of three counts. 
In the first he avers in substance that on June, 17, 1913, he 
was a passenger on one of defenlrmt's street cars, oouthbrund 
uyon Halsted street in Chleago; that he had alighted from tlcm 
ear and had recelTed a transfer «}ntltling him to ride upon 
another of defimdf%nt*a oars, weutbound upon North aTsnae; 
that idiile he, with due care, etc., was endesToring to board 
the Kerth avenu^^ ear, and before he was fully and safely an 
it, the defeadsnt by its serrants negligmtly "suddenly 
started" the car and thereby "jerked and dragged plaintiff 
and threw hlns to the grcwnd, " by ireaaon whereof he wae aererely 
and p«.rBanently injured. In the second count it is arcrred 
that the defendant by its e*rYants negligontly "suddenly 
started said ear before the plaintiff was fully and safely 
upen said ear*, and negligently "drag^ted plaintiff while he 
hi*d hold of aaid cnr, and was partly upon said ear and partly 
ttpsn the ground." In the third count it is averred that, 
stoil*? tlie oar w^s moving slowly to the westward and while 
plaintiff, witli duo care, etc., and with notice to the servants 
of defendant, wf»s endeavnrine to board tiie car, the defendant 
by its servants negligently "drove said ear suddenly and violent- 

£» ^ 



• 2- 

ly for*«rd and ♦ « dragged plaintiff along upon the ground 
there, ^ile he had hold of aaid ear and while he vas partly 
upon said car and partly upon i the ground." 

Balsted street is a north and s^nith street and upon 
it defendant operates care upon two tracks * northbound ears 
on the east and southbound c^irs on the west track, North 
avenue is an east and west street and intersects Halsted street 
at right angles. Ther«» are also two tracks in Horth arenue - 
westbound cars of defendeaat "being operated upon the north track 
and eastbound c«.re upon tl^e south track. The Btreet next ««8t 
of HalBted street is Clyhourn arenue . The block between Haleted 
street and Clytioum avenue ie & short one. The occurrence was 
between 7 and 8 o'clock in the saorning. a he westbound Morth 
avenue oar which plaintiff atteiipted to board was of the pay- 
a»-you»enter type f^nd about 5n feet long. Plaintiff was a 
cabinet maker, 50 years of age» a«d was working f cop an 
employer, whoso pla e of busineoti was further west on North 
avenue , 

Plaintiff teatified in substance tbat be alighted frofia 
the soutJfxbound Haleted street cttr, at a point ©bout 50 feet 
north of Horth avenue, went cast around the rear of the gut, 
saw the westbound North avenue c«r standing with its front end 
about even with the oast lino ol^'Halated street, ond hurried 
iver to boerd oaid oar at its rear platform; that a crowd of 
people were getting on; tiu. t he caught hold of the middle bar 
and stopped up, but "theee people didn't laove aw fast as I had 
anticipated and when I swuns up, * * I touched ag^^nst these 
people that were on the step, and the car started ut the Sfedie 
time, and it threw ae off * * on the street again, but 1 held 
oa with »y rlt^t hand;" that he had a lunch box under his 

• 3- 

l«ft arm fvad, droppinf: that u|>on the plstforns, he cam^ht the 
rear bar no a» to balnne* him»elf; that then "the car eti&rted 
up still fsiSter, fall epeed, and It took mt off wy feet, and it 
dragged m for Kftveral ft^et tmd then * ♦ 1 dropped the hold m.A 
•iTuek the pair«ment iflth the full length of my body"; thf^ he 
lost oonsclou»nefiu for & ohort tiBRe, «tjid that t}«n a yotang k-jmi 
atendiag <m the sidetralk aoaevhere aaw him and Cfisie and picked 
him up. On crouii exHKin.'stion plaintiff testifiaa in subetisxice 
th&t after he bt casje oonscious lagain ho was lying on the street, 
between the 9iac>.'&lk »nd the tracks, "probably ihrft® feet i»est 
of the wBKt ■wilding line of Hsloted atx^et*; that he waw sot 
on the step of the eor from the tixae the car started, until he 
fell; Slid thsit h« "rem elong with the oi^r", holding on to the 
bar • the middle handle with his right hand. Plnintiff'o «wily 
ether oecurrenee Yvitnees was v^illitim Clettenberg, who testified 
in substane« thfet he w&e eweoping eff the sidewalk in front of 
his father's plftoe of business ne;urly one block west of RaXoted 
street; th'-t h« happened to gi«mc« up, saw plttintiff holding on 
to the «»r &nd beini$ dragged} that when he first saw Mm the ea?- 
was Just weat of Halj»t*id street; th't he saw plaintiff *'three 
or Hour houses* before he fell off; th«it after pisintiff fell 
the witness ran and picJend hl« up; and th»t -«taen plaintiff was 
picked up he w&s About half a block west of Hi«lsted street, 
i^ich would be <*ab(:)ut four houses." 

Itefen'teaat's Tersion of the occurrence, which la 
supported by the testiatonj of the conductor of tha> westbound 
North ftTonva? car swid Of v.f our passengers stajiding on the rear 
pletform, is, in substance, th t after the car hji^d started from 
the SAst Bide of Halated etroet, and had crossed Halsted street, 
end WKB going at « speed of about ft miles per hour, plaintiff 
ran after the ear and atteiepted to bo&rd the safne , wne un- 


attoc«&»ful, end fell to the gro\md, w.ft«r «hieh the c«aduc!ter 
signalled the «otor»an to stop and the ©fejr was «topp©d «vithln 
aboYit 2^> feet. 

At the Ron elusion of plaint iff *b evidence, and again 
ot the conclusion of all the ©▼i:ience, the defendant wowd for 
ft directed Ttrdiot liut the asetiona vtere denied. The ^urj 
returned o Terdict finding the defenchmt j^ullty and ai8Bes»ing 
plejntiff»8 daniageai at I2400, Motions for a n«w trial and in 
erreet of Jadgxaent were overruled «jid the Jtt<:lg!aent appealed 
from wfcs entered. 

«0 are of the opinion that the verdict la wanifeetly 
agitinst the weight of the evidenoe. And in such case it is 
the dwty of this court to referee the judgsnent. ( lionelaon ▼. 
22£l iii* hD^SJ-JL ^*Ji3jl» ^^^ ^^^' 62B, 628; Pruin ▼, Cappe . 240 
111, 524, 954; Hjswk v. Chict-'-^Q B« 4 JJ,. g,. Oo., 147 111, 399,402; 
■Chi ea^^o & I, a, _co. v, Iwegh . 163 111. 3C5, 308,) And in the 
firec^^nt eeoe we think the Judgtr^nt should be reireroed without 
yomnnding the cause, "The »p lellate court mxy reveroe witbi^t 
reffi^nding under two conditions: Thirst, ^en it finds the facts 
in controversy different from the fin^iing of the triel court 
and nicitee th@ ultimate facte so found in its jud|;Bient; second, 
uteen it reverses for errors of law tidiioh cannot I*© obviated or 
cured on another trial." ( Hart y Bros, v. lolakow . 237 111, 
889, ft€7; Venning tos t, artmi 'vrunk Hy. £o,» 277 111. 39, 43,) 
Akd if, und^r the different f f cts au found, no recovery can 
he had against the defc!nd»nt, there is no n«ceasity for renandlng 
the cauec end this court is under no obligation to do so. ( Sengcr 
^» "^^^n of Hi,rvard . 147 111, 304, 3G7} Borg v, Chicago, -i^' I. & 
t* M," ££•• ^6 2 111, 548, 356.) 

Za the present c»»e, if defend«4»t*s version of the 
occurrence , supported hy the teetisMmy of five witnesses, is 

the eorreet one, then, cX^arXy, ic-fendsoit wan aot guilty of tmy 
negXigenee, wad pi«intiff»s injuries were eauaed l>y hi« <awn 
negXlg«not. Aa4, if «« take plaintiff's 79 relon «f the 
eeeurrenee, ?>e dieeX^sed by his testiateny, plaintiff vae guilty 
of negllgenc** vrhiow'i cf^ntrlbut^d to hie injuries. ben plaintiff, 
as h«' Bays, first attempted to l&eard t);e standing a&r i^t tkm rear 
▼eetlbule, stepped, up sad "touched agalnBt" the erowd of people 
miaa wtre also attempting to ho«ra the ear, and the ear started 
•ad tturev hin off on the street &>gain, he a till held on to the 
■Id^ile har vith hie right hnnd, and *ran along «ith the ear,' 
^aen the oar wa« startlnft an ' the crowded plntforw then prevented 
hin from getMn»; on the atop or the pl&tform he oould h«ve easily 
let go hie hold <m the bar snd 9»csipetd Injury, but he took his 
ehftnoes end held on to the bar, doubtless expecting to be able 
to board ii» ear notwithetiwdlna its increasing speed. 

Ihe jud^aent of the Circuit court ie retwrsed. 



•» find ae an ultlBtat® fact in this ease thet 
plaintiff ira« guilty of negligenoe which contributed to 
his lBJurt«s. 

51& • 2m 



OF ailCAGO, \ / 

Appeal, from 

Cirettit Cfiurt, 

Cook Gftimty. 



this i» an «ps>««l fr«n a Judgmnt of tbt Circuit 
C«mrt of tiooJc County in favor of defend«dat for 6o»td« etc, 
¥bt «i]ppeal was firet pcsrf (»ct«d in th« ^uprfsiae Court, but that 
court decided ( Kutane y« a«BitK.ry District » M^ lU. 129) thr^t 
no question of freonoid w»*o invoi-red, nor any oth«r queotion 
giving that eourt Jurlodlation of the Appftftl, and th« c(!>u&o 
wfie traii«ferr«ii to this .appellate Coiu-t* 

lh«! action io troftpasis on the oape , eosuencsa l^y 
>ll, 19X!>, for ditaaagoe for injuries to or ope, ti»l>er and 
pa«iturag0 upon certain iMido owned by plaintiff end lying 
aion^ th« Xllinoia riv»r, in Futn«« <:-»unty. To the original 
Aoolaration, eoneiBting of fo«r eounio» th« (iefen4*tit firtt 
filed a general demurrer, and .mtnat*qu«ntly filed a apeoitil 
desntrrer to each of the eounte. tYi^ court <3rvcrrule4 the 
denwirrere e© to the first and fourth counts, awd sustained ttie* 
as to the second ciod third coimts* iMmtidad second and third 
eotmts were filed by leave of eourt, and a apeciai demorper 
to Sfvdft wfes int»^rpoe«d» <:;n iioveisber 17, 1<»17, d©f«ndiint xmn 
given leave to file, aad filed, a general dewirrer to sftid 
second and tlslrd ru»nded counts. On lioveailwr 30, 1917, 
plaintiff dlsmiseed first and fourth counts and was given 
leave to amend the sec«aiid aaende^l count upon its faoe, the 
dejBurrers theretofore filed to stand thereto, and the court 
aUBtained the cieKurrers t-^ said ©eoond and third aaiended counts. 

JS frS. * 

. ;.:v 

u ' uA 

ABd, jplaintiff ftXectlng to etaadi by th» ■fl«e« the Judtsmut 
Bpi>««led fres w«i8 entered. 

It it first ooiitended l>y plaint Iff a coimwl that 
defendimt, by ebtnining lenTe to file ead filing n gc^neral 
deisttrrer to t2i« necaod «Ad third aMended cmuits, imiTsd the 
•peeial demurrer th«retofore filed to each of aald cnunts. We 
do not think to. 'i^iunre a general deamrrer to k count of a 
dttclan tion only is filed, a good grwind for special de^^rrer, 
tttch as duplicity or pther defect in form, cannot he raised. 
(1 Ciiitty PI. *p. 694; Chi caao -ve at ^ivleion ay . Co . ▼. 
InKTtthaiB . 131 ill. 659, 665; Hamilton ▼♦ liaendrath . 185 111, 
Api>. '"^02, 507 •} Bui it i& cnimi;<on praeiioe to file to a eount 
• f a (lecl«ration both a general sad special demurrer, and we dt 
not thinie it ah uld make any differenee whether a general and 
apecial desaarrer are filed elBsultanenusly, or at different 
ti«eQ, or, if at different ttwefi, in what order, furthermore, 
before the entry of the Judgment, and on the sam day, plaintiff 
ebt&lned leuTe to ajnend the second eieen<ted eount upon its faoe, 
the "deisoirrfero Iteretofore file'! to stand thereto." ^ thililc 
that the plural word, "dewirrers*, referred to the general aad 
special deja;>urr«r theretofore filed by defendant to eaid &Kend@d 

It ia secondly e intended th&t the trial court erred 
la suiiteiaing the deaairrcrs to tbia second »Bienv3ed coimt. fht 
aubstnnoe of th»3t coimt ie that plaintiff ie, and for awre than 
fire yer-rs prior to the beginning of the suit wks, the pwner 
aad in pooaeseion of the Itmds in question; thet the sas^ consist 
•f Taluabls tiaiber land, fsris land and pasture land; that 
d«fendr«t is authorized by the (>.et under whieh it is organized, 
to flow through its canal only . certain a»ount of water into 
the Illinois riyer. tha amount of auid flof^age to be based 

* Jbuoo 

• 3. 

up«n the population of the district and the aRlfora flow to te 

inere&ised only aa iiiti population of the 4 lair lot lncr«»fte<t; 

thut contrury to its l«?g«.l duty defendj&at did not irm.intnin a 

Btoftdy iuEiiforM floi» of w«ter through its eatuil, durlfig the 

flTO y«»xB imaiodlately precedlnj^ the beginning of thp 8ult, 

b«^&ed upon the population, Imt *at tises greatly Inorci-^^od a&ld 

flow beyond the tiUBount *uthori2«d hy Raid statute , snd without 

Wgard to the population, and "villfully refused to baee said 

fl9«iige upon said population**, and thnt by re^stm thereof, during 

»«ULd psriod, grent volua»8 of watcrr *at tlK'tss" »er« earried 

through sjsiid canul fron l^ke l<'iahigiin end throui^ interifi<?di&te 

streams into the Illineie ri?<r<:r ahove plc;intiff*a l»nds, in sueh 

queatitiea thnt e«id l«nde *nt such tlneB" were flooded, eiid 

into rmit ten tly trnd t«!?J«porRrily soaked "for a portion of eech of 

the Bfeic fif« yef<r6*; th^t in conwequenoe thereof, inuOh of the 

tiabor upon ociid lundu has heen dt) aged »nd many treeo have died, 

and JBiUoh of th* pasturage hiis bec<»oe lnteri«ittently and teinspnrf^rily 

injured, end plt^intiff has lOBt dlYore crope and bne been prerented 

frojsi using eaici lands for fariElng purpoacaj and thfxt "the liability 

of d«fonu«int for 8t*ia act of treepase upon hpr Xim&ti wrb further 

iB^o^iied by reaaon of the fefores.;4d utatute under which afid 

defttxd^snt was organiacd* tdutreln it la proTlded: 

"361. Liability of Sanitary District for 
Daiia^a.) #19* ^Yery sanitary district 9h«ill 

be licbl« for all dujnageo to real e etftte «fithln 
or without ouch district which ah^ll be over- 
flowed or oth«r9»i:>e daraaged by rtia&on of Uie 
construction, enlnrge!r«nt or ua« of nny channel, 
ditch, drain, outlet or other in^rowKcnt und'^r 
the proviaiona of thl» isctj and 'tione to recover 
aujJi^eu toay be brnu^jirc in the crainty where 
such real estate is situate, or in the county 
where nutih senitary diatriot ia located, at the 
option of the party elaimlnip: to be injured.* 

Section 20 of the "act to create sanitary distriets 

and to remove obstructions in the DesplaineB and Illinois rlTcrs", 

approved May 29, 18^-9, in foroe July 1, 18S9, as »«ended, provides 


In 9»rt Die follftws: 

"Any chana«l or outlet constructed under the 
previa lone of whie <>ct which ,,hixll o*iU»« the dls- 
ehftrge of sewage into or ih.rcvM?h any river ox' 
»trer^ of vj&tfcr beyond or without the lisatn of 
tii« (iiietrict conatructing the i&*i.jBe iahail te cf 
•uflieient »i-«« and Cfiipucit;/ to profiuc« a con- 
tinuous flew of wst«r of at ie*^ >t \.vo i»un ired culjic 
feet per n^inute for ach one- thDuaarui of the 
population of the di strict (irained thereby, and 
the arme sh«li ^ks kept wn-l aaintftlned of such aiiie 
and in such nonait-ion thirt the water thereof ehall 
l)« neither offen«iT« or injurious to tlwi h«f.«lth 
•f any of th« p«opie of this aXAte; * * tm6 s«iid 
district eh?ill, et the tittup imy oewe^e ia turned 
into or through any such channel or chsmnvls, mm 
into 5^ id channel or cl'iannels not Icysi thiOi tvivnty 
thousand oubic f«et of wat^r ]?«*r rninutt? for every 
one hxyacti'd th "no i^nU in/iabitant© of a<a,id district, 
e«id shEtll ther«ffter mciintain th*» flow of such 
quuntity ©f voter.* 

In faction 25 of Sftid act it ii-> in p&rt provi i^d: 

"If tlaR population of th« dietrict drulnlng 
into such chiumol »hall at any tiiae exceed 1,5'X, C'f', 
saoh chixn^l uhttij. b«? made .r.d kept of Buoh siue sund 
in 8u<di condition th»t it >ffili produoo und mcslntein 
at lil.v lifflfty Ji continuous flc of not Isms than 20,000 
Ottbic feet »f water per minute for eueh 100,000 of 
tx;« popul&tion of «uda U' trict, at a current of not 
■ore thjKn three isilea per hour, * ^ ^ 

In Kf^ction ^& of oaid ^ct it ia in part provide^ 

"iJwre the uniu^d flew of /Any aanitary di-fitricta 
thuH eo-op^ rHiin^t ohiul pscs into i^y ohaniiel 
oonetructed within the llffiita of the Of^mty ««hareia 
GUGh di^itriots! arc ioc.':ted, «>Xi l which pHhweis into 
tJut Deaplftine^i or Illinois rivc^rg, euch united flow 
ah'jli In no o.-uie imd nt no Xirm be leea t^iun r;',000 
cubic fe«^t of water per minute for each one hundred 
thmae-titd of th» a{f(jr®gate of thP populist ion of tht 
districts co-opKrr^ting.** 

It appe&re from theae aectionu of thi' 'st^ttut® that 
defendant is i&uthorixed to flow not le s v thm SO, OOP ouMe feet 
of wmter per minute throug)* its ntdn channel for eaoh 100,000 
•f the population of the di^striet. the inference is, «e think, 
that it nay flow »ore water iriben necese&ry to properly dilute 
tlie »«w&^ and to render the water not offensive or injurious 
to the hO£ilth nf any of the people of the etAte. 

The gist of said eeoond f?jiiended oount is that the 

► 5« 

^fffvAmit •♦fet tiwtt* gristly inor««n«4 said flaw beyond th« 
tasBCunt autlio vised by »«al<i statute* ttnd "^-llfuliy refv.Bftd to 
base SRict flowiiife upon said prspul^tion^ . In his printed arguMeat 
her« filed oounaeX for plaintiff extends: 

*lt the statute ?uthorizo8 the reooYery of 

jr ll :iar?r'gO0, nn ■?'li''>t <**^n cerr.?siniy recover a 
p^rt.ion of the Baa» , uhe may eleet, If !ihe 
d€t^ir"??, to wiilve those d.-^nuigcjo rt;;.siiting fx'oa' 
the steady s>:v} suthori nedi flowage of the cit.nal 
tmd oount upon ^r^ recover fei* :olcly thoa« 
damages c:ius« i by nu'tden inereafees of flowage 
beyond thr ©r-^imt uuthoriw^d. This iss all 
that is dvclareri upon in t^ia cnxmt*** 

«t Si3r9 %t the opir»ior. ths^t the trial court did not 9tT 
in mict»ining the denmrrere to aai-i cjaended cotint . ^^ do not 
think th»t a c^ma* of action i9 elated ther«in, 'j:h«rc i8 no 
slie^cAtion to the effect that ^irt»n the aiaount of ^nt«r flowing 
•xeeeded 20,000 cubic feet for each lCK),<V^r' of popul?ition, that 
the exo«B.i ^jta unneoesa^vry for tlK prup«(r dilution of t>» sewage, 
^rtheriicre, if plaintiff is seeking to "woover for solely thtn* 
dffljssagee caused by Buddea incre«.s:e» of f lo *af« beyond the swnunt 
authorised**, hb eufigested by coumael, Jihe hf^e not state <! the tim 
or tlneo t5*B?n ssid liscre**.B«s oc<mrred, nor the awcont of inf^reaao, 
nor the fiopulatloa of the district at euch tiiae or tirwa, nor the 
i^nunt of dsjeiige result in/- frore each IncreaHO . as it nt^.ma, to 
U8, each aud'Jen increii^ee, if any, constitutes a aeparate and 
distinct tort smd ahoald be stated separately with «iiffici«nt 
particularity aa t© tiae, «(aount of increase, mex'Si dam«gljii'; results, 
as to fedTise dei'endaat of th« charge or chii^goe it is called upon 
to met* 

It io thirdly contended thct the trial court errod in 
ouetalnlng the disaurrera to the third aaended count. The sub- 
stance of th.t count is that, during the fire years iamsdiately 
preceding the beginning of the suit, the (Uticago river, the 
artificial channel of the dsfondant, the Illinoie river and Lake 




}U.chi|;«n were? n&TigabX^ wnd were autojeci to the Jurisdletion 
and erntrcft oi* the UnitP^^i states par'nmm.nt and its v?ur depart- 
nftni; thi^t the w«r dfepwirtafnt during all of aaid f ivs years had 
fix#d and rsetricted the ?:'jv,o»^t cyf wator iteich cJefen<t«snt migjit 
flei» froffi L^Jcs Mluhi^toi into »'^da navt^iable strosiss, the mam 
not Lo ex(M!«d 25C,000 oul^^io f«et p^r -Tiinutfi; that, in vifig.atioa 
of 11:. daty &nii of Uuj rii^hla of* plaintiff atid in wilifttl dia- 
•'toeliencQ oi' aalA r«atricti«n, dof^ndant wrongfully &ad willfully 
%4nittea un i oattaoa to flow fr^iM i.alce ^^idsigaii «nd th« Chicago 
rlTar thraugh It % oh;am*5l into the Illinois rlv^r qU4mtitic.s of 
«tttor gre tly in sx«»as of *?fir,,000 oubio feet p«r iairiut«, thepo- 
Tjy .^auDing thu llii»oi» i-ivftx- to overflov? ite bs«nto and the l<m^ 
«f plaintiff, and ra suiting in \M mmui damagje vo lisr Isnds, 
tii3"bcr, paiiturr\ge iujd cropd is csTintionoU in eaitl aecond amsndod 
ooimt; mC that •the lia\)ij.ifcy of the deffcad«snt t«j the plaintiff 
for Sfsici trestijfBa uptr. h!»r lisnda wo.» further ianposed by virtue 
of tht? net undc» wiiich defendeoai vuf. organised, <«^erein it i» 
provicied \>j 19 thereof &b foilosaa"; (H«**« is aet forth 
fftctlmi 19 of the atatute, ?■.*; aVofe quot©^.} 

^f«ndit»t in it» special des^urrer to this count allegfin 
Antrr ^IjU thtvt the c'unt is dr-utele, uncertain iind insufficient 
in th t it tioci} not show "whethftr pletntiif %ao ««o icing to rttooTsr 
UBdor thft stattile* s.s '}uotrd, or under .% different liability thsa 
that isRposod hy ti» etfttute, or undor both the etistuto and another 
fens of liacilily, and there i« a oOfflttlngling of causes Of aetlOA 
In ssftld cpunt*. 

Wi tliink th;»t %bm «ount is d^vultle and ttierefore bad 
on special demirror. It 3t£!tes more than one oiatt^r ae a ground 
Of action. *The object of the ecience of pleading is the 
production of a single iss^ue upon the ayjm uubject-r^itter of 
dispute. The rule rolatinj; to duplicity, or doubleiicss, tends 
noro thnn any other to the uttainoRnt of this object. It 

^ I- 




ia «s.ds of tii«ir pl^tiditt^a, irmi stating; or relying up«n ieo?« 
tbiia 0B« faiii^* eonofcltuting a sufficient icraund of n<3ti«m, 
in r«apa(it of Vom utiMa duisuad, or a uu£'ficicB% cl«fen«« to th« 
BtOBH r;laii'i« or an nii«qu«ai« csnst^;!' t;o t&e px^eiweing pi.<s^ ftding 
of tiWi opt^oTKsKt,"* {'Jhitty tx. -»'p. i-'4y.> -iJwyiiLcity ,tR a 
de elAnv/li on oou^ictij ui «j s}i.rii,rig, it; on<i rAcl uhfs n^mf count, 
iiStbnmi* groundtt oa' ►>utior-, oi dil't'craiit t»iiUir«t.', «• of \,k« 
SftHe m. 'iax'fe , lo &urorce only t» 6in^«? rijihi ox" r80©v«?iry.'* 

MfcAdAtult-'/' . 2.J6 xl*. ijfi'» li;i>,} we 6© not tliinit that tl« trtal 
couri .rxvU lu sufctwiuinH i.i* tp^ci&i. iliiKsirrs'r t<> tiic Uilid 

For tht retJtmiu ir.'(£ici.t«(i Ui« ju<%i^nt of the Clroiit 
C«>wi?t it >.ri'i*rt»!* d. 



86 • 34944 

tm msmtS Of tRl ^TATK 

0.1P ILUJSOIi^, 

iQwf«nd[p,iit In Err<OTi 



rlaintiff In ii./ror. 

216I.A. 624 

Srrop to 

) Criainal Coiirt, 
Cook Ccmty. 

1. JU<>1;iC-i OrtIW.>st i; i*lVK 

tif^ cpiMios oy SH» oomi. 

Ttot treUBcript of the record In this c&a»e cor5t««in» 
only a so-called •♦County jail Mittimue". rroBi thli psp^T it 
appears that on 0«ceaiber S, 1918, plaintiff in error vae 
adjudged guilty of contempt of oourt, «nd «!C3 sentenoed to 
conflnoBMnt in the county Jail for a tern of six nonthe, r»nd 
the jailer was 0ommi8n<*od to tfttas the body of plaintiff in error 
find then} confine hin for 8»id tern. The or<i«r of cofsmitsient 
doe» 110 1 set forth the facte, &a it should, showing that 
the court wr*e authorized to tmket the ordnr» { People ▼• Hggj^, 
35fi 111, 496, 499; Haws en ^. H>iWffi on. Sft 111, App. 506, SIO.) 
She judgaM»t is reTeraed. 

27 . 2399 

B«f«n<i«kat in '3rr»w, 

MARY fflELSOM, ^n<UYiduAll;r • 
Atoinittratrix "suf %m Entatf^of 

AxUftlnietratrix ^ i^Hinii^ npiy with 
the will ann«xedi, of th<»*^^tste 

Watiiliff ij^Krror. 


IHhOft TO 


t^ocs: C€---!irTY. 

MR. PRESIDING JUOTIVSF Tlf^lSOH d«llT#r»Ci the opinion fif 
th« court, 

T)ft#. d«f«>ii<i«uit in •rrer, Jaaas Iteliigda, h«rffiiutft«r 


referred te ne th« oomplainantt filad thi» bill making par* 
tio» d«f ondsAt his two brothers John and Joseph and Jo««ph*« 
vif? MAry* th« plaintiff in 9rro)r, ?h« l>4^11 prtt^M wn «o- 
eounting aad aloo a partition of certtiin r«al ^^t^t^^to, Bsjr 
ihio writ of orror* U&xy HoIogdA, th@ def'^'fiaant, eoeko to 
roYoroo a d®«r«fi b/ the torma of whioh a partition waa 
orderod aa to one of the »i«itt*» of property inrolTod i^nd 
•II aa aaoountiog the oourt found o^'rtaiB ouws to ha duo 
from hor te tho oeaj^Xaiaant and inoiuded in the deeree 
yroTiolons reijijiirlng lior to pay the Qctaplainant said ouna 
afid eotalsliohiiig «(}uita'bX<? liana for ai»id amoimte a^ainai 
atlwr proi>eriy inrolved to whioh ahe held title. 

ay hi a bill the oom^Xainant alleged that he a«d 
hie brather J^l'in engaged in the aaloon v>ualneaa together 
and entered into a oontraet in writing defining their rea* 

l>«etiT« int«r'»8t>» by the terms of which ftaeh of thism vao 
to havo an oiiual interost in tlio business « its oamlags nnd 
profits, the partnorship ta oontinus for a period, of fiT« 
years, from and after the «atfl of the agroement lAiieh was 
March 31 « X90d. H« further stlXiig,iiH thnt they 9archa«e4 
at diff«»ront tines four plseos of real eetato, wMoh we 
shall designate as lots 1, S, 20 and 21, and that oertain 
spoeifio araounte vsnt into the purohase of thf^ee lots and 
la sc«e oases into the <»reotion of issproTeanents thereon* 
vhich amoiAnts w re the Joint earnings of himself and John, 
taken from the emloon 'business rnff^rred to, and that title 
to lot 1 was talcsn in the naae of Jaia@« , to lot 2 in the 
naxae of «rohn, to lot 80 in the name of Joseph, (inasmuoh 
*a Joseph and hie wife Mary were liTlng with James and 
John, contributing nero or loss of their labor to thi;' 
Biiceess of |lte business), and thft titls to lot 81 was 
taksa in the aasie of John, The one of the lots upon 
which inprovements were erootod was lot 21 tmA it was 
here thiit the parties all lived and oon^otod the saloon 
business in (luestion. 

The bill oontains detailed allogatione as to the 
▼arlous interest© sf the r«»pe«tiTe i^artieo in the four 
pieees of real estate which ar<^ InfolYed. It further seta 
forth th«t (jnntrary to the jftrovijsions of the written agree- 
ment oontaiaing th*» terms of the partnership of the si^oOB 
busineK! whioh hi»d been executed by the ouwpl«iaant Jaaes 
and the dofendwit John, said defendant together with Joseph 
and Mary, put the ooaaplainant out of the premii^es, whf*re 
they liwed and conducted l^e saloon busines^^, in July 1909 
and sliMinaisd hia froa the partnsrshijp and thereafter rs* 


fustid to |»«mit lilm on the |ir®iai««o ©r to amye an;^thiiis 
te (ie with the busin««8, after vMeh tlae, BAld three 
d«f«ndMntt, donduettd the businese ana «njeye4 all the 
rents, eaminga and profite of the premiers in question. 

The hill prays far an aooountini; hy the ciefencU 
ants* "of thfir rents, profits and income froa said prer^ees" 
einoe the tiste ntwin eompXainant aUe^ea he wris ejected from 
the pretiiaes and eliaUnntea from thf partnerehip, and fur- 
ther; "that the parte or laharee justly belonging t© yeur 
orator ana the other ovnf^re h<*reinaheTe mentioned in and 
ta, th* ahoTe deeeri'bed real ©st.^t<s jaay be aeeertalned, 
settled find determined, » » » and that a fair diYieioa 
and partition thereof may he nande between your orftter 
and the ether porsone vha ehall he foiand to he ovners 
or in any wfigr int^^reated in the eaiss aeoordin^ to their 
reepeetiTS rights and intt^reets.* 

The eauee was refrrred to a Master &xi& while 
the hearings wc re in pregresi^ wad the eomplainant was 
putting in hie oaBS| John «ae taken serioualy ill and 
the taking of ooaplainaat*« proof was euepended and 
John's teetiitsny «^s taken. Ouheequently John died, 
en Deoeuber 8d, 1011, Still latf?r, naaely, in April 
If 18 and before- eemplttinant had <3oapleted hie proof and 
roasted his ease and before Joseph had t*!!®tified or had 
an opportunity to put in any defense, the latter alsa 

Before hie death John conveyed his int^^rest in 
the saloon business to Joeeph. He left a will leaving 
all of hie property te Joe*«ph and li&ry and Joseph bei 

the excoutor of hia «»tat«. Jo»«ph Iftft tve minor ehil* 
droit* for vliom • ipiardlcun ad Utem w ao appointod In theso 
proo«edlaga. Hie wife M«ur/ «fto appointed adoinietratrix 
of hio oetato and oXoe adalaletratrlx do bpnJB non with 
th« will annoxod of th* eietato of Jo to, The. oupoa, by 
loaYO of oourt. the Qoraplainant fiX«d his 8upi«X«»%ntal 
bill, oottinis up th« Estattoro Juet rof<«rre<l to and etlao 
oottia^ up agaia tho matt«rff oontalaed in the original 

BjT tb« deor«« thtf- oourt found that thff faeto 
ae to tho partaorahip b«t«o«»a tho ocmplainant Jaaoo and 
tho d«f«nd»Jit ^ohn, and th« elimination of Jaaoo ihero* 
from t were asalleged by the complainant in hie bill* »nd 
that aftor Jamoo was Alimiitatcd fro!:t tho buainooe, Joha 
and Jo soph aud Mary ooatlnued ta oootipy tho pr«nleoa 
ffhore tho ilaleoa nao looated and oenduot th« businooo 
until John*R doath in Bosianbar, 1911, and that aftar 
that. JoBOph axtA Mar/ oooupiod aaid pr«ni«os and «»»• 
duotod tho buoineoe until Joseph* a doath in itpril 1912 » 
aftor whioh Uary oo<3upiod tifio promlaoo and oonduotod tho 

Tho court f oiutd , for varioua roaoona, whioh it 
will not bo nooeaaary to disdusa here, UmX %im oomplalnant 
had no title to any part of lota 2, 80 or Si, but that ho 
had an undlTidod oao*half int^^roat in lot 1, and that Mai7 
hold tho othor undiTidod on«-half whidh, proviouo to hor 
huaband*o doath, had b«<*n hold by hor anid hor laiaband aa 
joint tonanto, Thoroforo tho only partition awarded by 
tho dooroe wua a partition of lot 1, aooordiag to the 
rofpootiTO iatorooto of tho oomplalnant* Jaraoa, and tho 

r-Jl 9':OW 


defendant Iburjr. £<« ooaj^laict wa» mad« 1»jr «ith«r «« to 
tMs portion of \iM» d«er<»« mnA in ttiia r«ep«et, thf?reforo, 
the d«eT«« will 1»« af firi^tod. 

Tli9 (i«er(«« further found tii&t ttt tA»»^tim« of 
th* purohase of lot S!0 title to whioh wa« tAken in tho 
nsiae of Josoph, h9 furniehoU $800,00 towards tho ]^urc]te«« 
and JaA«iG( and Jolm furniBhcd |7M,00 out Of the oarainga 
of the businooe, and th&t iritten the three brother* «r«ottt4 
inproy«ai<»nt« on thia lot* J«m»n aad John furniehrd for 
tliis purpooo th« »xtm of $93O0«O0, of wMoh f^SOO.OC ommi 
from tli« darnings itf tho buoinooo and $4500,00 vae ber* 
rovid »ai<^ to eoooro th« payaent of the l*tt«r amoiyuitc 
John oxooutod hie ooto and eoourod it bjr a trust dood 
eoT«ring lot 21. ?ho oourt further found tht&t at the 
tirae J&mem and John advanoea the #7&U.Q& toward the 
purchaoo of lot 20, isind the $53C0,0O for the ereoting 
of inqtroTOmontfi th^^reon, mt^-ii^ m total of $6,^Vi»QC, 
Jose }h jitromioed to re^ay the monvy »o advaneed but that 
neither Joseph nor Mary have ever repaid that susi al-> 
though they have been in poeseseion of the prejBi»e» oontln* 
uously nna h»ve oel looted th« rents aad ineoae therefroa« 

The oourt further found that after Jam^-e was 
eliminated from the business and J0ltm» Joseph wtd (^ary 
continued in exelueiYO posaeesion of the saloon business 
and thp premises (lot 21} , they negleoted to pay the 
interest on the |.450C,00 ineuabranoo on that propr^rty, 
abOTe referred to, ond in <»>nsequenoe the property was 
sold under foreolosure and a Itestev's deed issued to ono 
Lakotek, a brother of dary, whereby the undivided interest 
to wbioh Jaaioe was entitled, has been lott to hia. 


Tllft deojreo then went on to proTid« that )>eoatt«« 
Jea«ph and l&ary had fAile^i te pt^ ^ok any iMirt of thff 
$60&0«00, advanoed 1»/ «Tara«»» to Jc'im* for the purohein* 
of lot 80 and th« «r«ctlon of Iwproremftntft th''reon» (in 
fulfillment of Joisftpli'ft protaioff} «nd beoauee of the fall* 
ur« of John* Joseph Rsd Mary to pay tho interest on the 
|4900«CfO iae\«sbranQe on lot al» ae a r4<!!?ult of whioh James 
lofti hie undiTided one-»half interest in that lot* Janes 
vas entitled to an ao counting from ££ary as to that |60S0,<^, 
and ftirther it warn detfreed that there was due f ron Mary 
te Janes, on aoaount of the noney adhraneed for th« purohane 
•f lot 2C and the iaproveaa<$nts th«reon, one- half of said 
sun or ^3C2&«00 together with interest amounting to $1143. 8», 
or a total of 4Ml<ia.25, anil thnt for the reasons abOTS 
referred tn Jane<s mtn entitled to an equitable lien on 
said 1st 80 for that aaount» whieh lien th«? decree pT9» 
ee«;ds to provide for. 

Cn behalf of th4*def ea4«lt Kary several reasons 
are urged upon ue for the reversal of this portion of the 
desree but in the view we take of this matter it will be 
neoeseary to T-^feT to only one of then* After the d«?aths 
•f John and of Joseph and after M&ry Helegda, an adninis* 
tratrix d£, bonis noi? .» with the will annexed of the estate 
•f Joim and as adiAinis tratrix of the estate of Joseph* Iwd 
been substitvited for th» two deoeaeed defendants* a aetiea 
was nade before the faster to strike out all of the oon» 
plalnants testimony en the ground that unaer the provisions 
of seo. 8 of oh. 51 of '>ur statutss it had beeome ineon* 
potent hy reason of Uie deaths of John and Joseph. TliAs 
notion was denied and in due tiias th»re ims an objeotion 


^jr the def *nuiimt Mn^ry H«l«£te t« the Qast«r*t report on 
thin lerouAti, vhioh obj«otion «»s ov«9rritil«<l unci su^Ji rullnic 
vas duly laAde the l9«i»iB of im exoeptioa b«for« ih« olum- 
OAllor &nd the or^rralin^ efthut i»:£a«ptl.oit haa b^cn tunsign* 
•<} »• 9TT9T, In our opinion the ^^otion shouid hsv^ l»««m 
ttiloired. T^\lh Xa, MUiMS. 3L77 111. 44fij j^iSfe Xa. ^yEE2£. 
SIS 111. 24. I'h* oomplain«»t urgfts that th« decree etasuld 
a0t b« reTer««d for thim renAon 1»ft<»iuee neither the eetat* 
of .Tohn nor the «^etttt«^ of Joeejfh are in an/ way mffeeted 
by the <t«oree. Thle we rm^s^rA «e whelljr laawterial. The 
reaeeA vhy this portion of the decree onxmot stASd ie that 
the i^n/Ment of it»41<>a««JS whiah thr decree direeto Mary to 
HUtJce to Jaaee ie epeeifioally, \>9 the terns of the deoree, 
baaed up«m the failure of Joeeph t& fulfill his promise 
to repay that aaount to J'amee and al»e upon th<" failure 
of both Joh?-) and Joeeph to owe t the int«?r#tit paymeitts on 
the martgage on lot 21, as a reaalt of whi<di oemplainant 
has been deprived of hie interest in that lot. Am to the 
promise to return this iaoney» tihieh the deoree finds «as 
opeeifioally laaUe Iqr J^oeeph, tlte eTld<=(nee is in direct 
ooafliot. that provision in the decree d^ends lart^ely, 
if not entirely, upon the teetiaony of the oomplainant 
James, for its sup )ort« It ie> speeifioally denied hy ISary 
j^loffda, «rhe says that Joseph noT^r aade any suoh promise, 
but on the oontrary she urgee that at the tlf^e Jamaa and 
John erooted the improyaaents on let 81, they we9o with* 
out suffioient funds and that she and Joseph loaned thm 
a eonsiderable aaount for that purpose, and that later 
whan eh» an<i Joseph wanted to ereot i&iproT«f»i(-^nts on their 
lot, (lot ao) , they w^r« witliout eufflolent funds and 


ih^.r<»for« urged ^Am«s and Jolm %o pm^ \^9k the amount 
thAl had preTit'Ufil^ 'b««>n loaned to them Igr hftr huBl»and 
And h^raelf and thst Judee &nd Jolm did not have th« 
fundft with whioh to pay back tlrw" loan and for thut re«M» 
oen thoy put the lnoumbran<s« on lot 21 and aeeci the prttm 
ooedosT the Inousabranoe to repay tii« indehtodnoeo to her 
and b«r Hueband Joooph. As to the preioiee whloh the ooa- 
plalnisint «1 1'tged .Tooeph had made to repay the sumo referred 
to, James b«>0Ria<» an inooiapstent vltneas upon Jooeph** 
de«th and it wat error to d«iy the aotion to strike out 
suoh teetiiaony n« he nad given on that euhjeet. jii chardgon 
T. R,^chti^d(ioa . 148 ill. 663. 567. lln<3«?r the atatute 
Jaraen vae an ineoapetent witnese at to the proaioe all4HK<^<^ 
to hare been «ade by Joseph* whether Hary denied it or not. 
For thio reason it beoomee Becensary to reverse that por^ 
tion of the deoree dirt'Oting Mary to pay the oonplainant 
|416d.25 And providing for an equitable lien in complain* 
ant* 9 favor ai^inst let 2€ for tliat aaaieuBt, ana to rei^mnd 
%h» eauee for further prooeediags, as to that part of the 
Qontreveray between the parties. 

fh'^re wr^s another provision in the d«<oree by 
which tlie ooitrt found that the ooxaplainant was entitled to 
an acoounting frsa iiary for the u@e of the saloon pr<»aiBeo, 
(lot 21} and that she should account to the complainant 
for one* half ef the fair rental value of vioid presises 
frost iMoeaber 26, 1911, the dote ef Jo to* a death, to May 
21, 1913» the dete ef the Master* s deed rf^eulting froa 
the foreclosure on these prcmisee, and that aocount >iaving 
been taken and it having been determined that the fnir rental 
value of the premisee was $lCe«CC per month, whioh would 

MM»uat to lilO.OC for th« p«riod r«f«rr«<l to, the* d«e3r«« 
dlr«ot«4 Mary to.pagr Jaaos ono^half th»t aaount or #25S 
ABd furthor <tontain<»<3> proTiaions giving th<»ons;sipInXn»nt 
JamMB an oquitable lien for that aaaunt agalnat «Uiry*ft 
iBteraat in lot 1, Ae to thi« provision th<; a«ar«o will 
\»o affirmed* The testimony of Jamen had no offoei upon 
this start of tho da»« and therefore the error ooaiaittod 
in denying th» laotion to atriice it out hoooaes inButteriai • 
We do not ondi^ratand that there is «iy denial of the faot 
that Mary and her husband we«« in full posseesion of the 
premises for the period referred to and that during that 
period title to an undlTided one*half of the preaises 
«as in Jaaes and the titl« to thf» ether undivid«»d one* 
half was in Joseph and HutFy as tenants in ooouaon* la 
otar opinion th«»r# was no error in speoifieally providing 
for the eciui table lien an to this item. The ent^^ring 
of the deer«»e for this speoifio sun of i»on«y «sta\»lishe4 
a lien upon isary* s int<f«rest in lot 1, without anything 
■tore, and therefore the part of the deeree providing for 
the li«a has net affeeted the defendant one way or the 
other, Ae to any other controverted queetione of fact that 
.<aay be said to affeot this portion of the decree-, we 
oannot see that there was any error «»>iaaltted by the oourt 
in finding as it didgt as we are of the opinion that the 
allegations of tli^ hill are sufficient to support this 
part of the deoree, Casoteyeiis v^, isSLSILkSI'ffiS.* '^'^ I1X» 

The eentention that ther« -^ere n«c«o«ary partios 
mho w^re not h«for0 the eourt is in our opinion untenable. 
The aaeaded bill aade the trustee^ the first and seoo^ sue* 
•easora in trust and the owner of the note in oonneetion with 

• 10. 

til* inexioibr«n«e 9n lot SI, parties, but nuaeieaa «a» n«fT 
issttvrd aa to th^m an<j th«y iieTor »pp»ar«(l in th« (»••• 
T]m»8« fA«tt» weir^ quit* Inmattirial dn this raeord. Th« 
ui«ad«ci Mil eontaittod nuoh allftefttioaa a«* if proT«n» 
neuld entitle the oonplmJinant to am aeoountinis aad a« to thle 
issue th« partifftt r«f irr«di to were quit* unnttoattsary, and 
th«r« i», th'^cBforti, n» want of nesasMizy parties as tc 
that feature of th« toill. Sayy r^ 8»rr . S73 11 u 6«l. 
As to tisat part of th«> oas* having to do with the par* 
tition of th« iatfraats of tun reepeotivo parties, th« 
d«»oree entered, affeots lot 1 only, ae to whi^h the par* 
tie* referred to, adisitiedl^ h»d no interest vhatever* 
It was th(»re.fere uanea«>s8ax7 to have th«s served with 
sunaoas and the desree saanot be said to he in any way 
dfeotive, beoAuse thogr were not hrought into the oftee, 

7or the reasons stated that part of the d^oree 
•f the Oirouit Court which providss for a partition of 
lot Xp and also that part direotinc the defendant to pay 
the ooaplainant the sws of #S55,O0, are affirmed, and 
that part direoting the defendant to pay the oomplaiQ" 
ant the sum of <{H,I6S«85, is reTf^^rsed and the oause is 
rei^utnded to the Cirottit Court for further prooeedin«s 
not inoonsi stent hf^n^with. 


800 ^ 24558 


H0Li,6 find :iHMihm M. tjoaKua, 
JH. ( ipttrriTiag partncra of J 

PAYHl fiad J^HS A. RUSK, / 

Appej|«9B. ) 2 1 6 I 

XH, PHl?SlJ>ia[0 JXJSTXO'!; THCMSOH delivered th« 
opinion of th« oouxt. 

Thi« is «n app«aX bj the plaintiffs froa a 
judffsi«nt for oooto in foYor of tho><lef rn dan tr. 

Tlio dafoadant Flint who cmployod by tlMt pl«iin- 
tiff «• an iaouranoo oolioitor and in oonnoatlon with 
that asaployment h« fjaT* th« plaintlffo his bond in the 
sum of $ZQQQ, with the def<md(m ts i?a^n« and Husk as 
sureties. Tho portion of th« bond sotting forth tho 
obligation ims in th*» usual form, Tho ecndition of th» 
bend was «xpr#8s«d as follows: 

*The oondition of this obligation is suoh. 
that said Rdward ». Flint is about to aseuias tho 
duties of soli ei tor in the eaploy of th« fira of 
Bogers h Rollo ana ohali well and truly ,>erfor« 
the duties of saia solicitor and siiall truly ae- 
eeuuRt for nil moneys $itnd otmr tilings oofiiing to 
his hands as solicitor during thft tern of his «»- 
pleysent and at the ex lira ti on of the tens of «a» 
9lo/nent shall deliver to th*? said firm of ilog^ers 
At Belle all moneys and other things in hit; hands 
belonging to the said firm« then this obligation 
to be Toid} ethnrwise to rwaaia in full foree and 
Yirtue. * 

Mr C:. 

tilt plAlntiff l»roiui^ht this suit again* i the 
prinoipai and euSretivs on thii bond» olaining aertftin 
lire«ah«8 of th« aondltion* Thfler fil«(i a deoIarAtion 
oontttining »lx m>untff, to whiah the a«f«n(l;>nt8 fil«d 
a gon«raX an4 •p«91a1 demurrer, the oeart eustedned 
the desnurrer to the tt«oon<i, third nml eixth counts 
and overruled the demurrer to the first, fourth and 
fifth counte. The latter ruling i» not involved on 
this appeal. I^urther* the trial oourt alleved tJMi 
d<3fendaiit*8 raotion for a bill of parti oulara as to the 
latter oounts, whioh the i>laintlff8 filed within the 
time 8pe«t!flod. After the filing of the bill of par* 
tioulars, the defen«i«ints again demurred generally and 
ospoolalljr to the first* fourth an4 fifth oounts *as 
aaonded by the bill of xtartioulars* «tn& the trial oeurt 
sustained said d'^cmrrers. T)%f^ dii^fendaats also made a 
notion to strike the bill of particulars frou the files 
as insuffioiont, whieh motion mam alleved^ The plains 
tiffs elected te et»nti by their d<oolaration and bill of 
partioulars as filed and the eourt entered the Judgment 
above referred to, fr<ua w)iioh the plaintiffs have per* 
footed this appeal* 

tfe shall oonoider first the aotion of the trial 
court in suntainiac the general and speoial demurrer to 
the second, third and sixth counts, 

The second co iVt set out the bond in haoo verba. 
On the oral argument in thie coxtrt counsel for defendanto 
contended that thA question of th(^ validity of the bond 
ims t»% involved on this appeal. We are of the opinion 
that it is, aoiinsel st^ites in his brief that the court 

•«»%ala«4 hia afiaaxTrBT to the 8«cRn4 oount en t>x« ground 
that under the oandltlon of th« bond th^ro oeuld ht ne 
reeoTery and alao lb«oau«« »ald oount allie^ed, as br^mohee 
•f the ocndition of th* hoiul, »»t only the failiire of the 
defendant 7llnt to atoooimt to the plaintiffsfor ^2227,54, 
whioh it "vas contended be should have turned ort^r to then 
on hie inffuranee traneaoti@n«, whioh m%» a matter vlthin 
the eondition of the hond. hut si 00 hie failure to ao oount 
for a bfulano'i on an old premitsa &o oount an^ to pay an al« 
leged balanee on an old loan aooount, which it was held 
were matters not within the oondition of the hond* It 
sasMS olear that the old premiwa aeocuat and the eld 
loan aO'Sount were not ooTs^red by the condition of the 
Wnd. It eannot he eald, &et the plaintiffs oontend, that 
these saounts were tvithin the phrase "'moneys and other 
tyiin^ss in hSs hands helongin^ to the said firsn" whioh is 
ocntain^d in th« condition of the bond* Bor dan the 
allegations as to the old prealun account and the old 
loan Bocount be eoneidered as surplusage as the plaintiffs 
oontend they should be. They ars itcns whioh from the 
faee of the oount are matters for whioh the defondttnts 
eannot be liable under the instriuaent sued upon end there* 
fere their presenoe in the count auUces it danurrable. 

In sur opinion the oaant is not demurrabls 
for the other reason assigned » n^^^ely; that unuer the 
ocndition of the bond th<:»r« co .lu be no rf^oevery, the 
oonditiua being d<^feotive and oontainlng no liability* 
The condition is not expressed in the usual way^ but 
taking the language exaotly as we find it in the bend 
ws are of the opinion that the ocmdition is not defeo* 
tiTC as eontended by the plaintiffs. As was said by 

th» eouri In conatrulnf; a "b^nd oontaining aliaiXsr lBng\mg« 
^^ ^OfUifnlloy^ 2^J^ ^iOGr«Mtor . 56 isinn. 312, *w« are bctund t© 
a«ouai« that the parties intended tbe Instn^ent to b« «f» 
f «otttal , not nugatoryt And if what vas intandad aa th« 
condition na/ bi» nso«rtain«d from the tanan* raad in oon* 
naetion with tha eirounstane«a under vhioh, and th« pur* 
posffs for whiOh aa aJrtavn hy thoaa olreuMstanofta, the bond 
vaa ax«outad, it auat ha auatained." Tu th<!? Baiaa affaot 
ara the deeiaiona in i^bbiird r , Mollind l qr . Z8 ill. S40{ 
Affold V. Paopltt . 12 HI. App. S02. lu«! oa»a at har i» 
to toe diatin^ishttd from yit«g«rald v. Staplaa . SB 111, 
834 • in whieh a bond aiailar in its languai;e to the ona 
inYolTod hera, waa aonatruad. In the oast referred to 
this oonditiott aontain^ta a rnoital that the etoligor had 
entered into a oertain oentraet with %iw o1>iig««» toy th<^ 
terms of wid<3h, c rtain things w^rm to toe done and oon* 
oluded toy aaying "th«^n this otoligation shall be to id; other* 
wiae to r«nain in full feroe." In our opinion the oondi- 
tion in the bond involved in the oaee at bar oontftins more 
than that. Zt deolarea that the eondition ef the bond 
wae auoh that the etoligor i» about to enter the ei^loy of 
the obligee as a soli ei tor and that he shall well and 
truly ]^«rf9rm the duties of solioitor suid that he shall 
truly acoount for the aMiaeyft and all other things ooning 
to his imnds as solioier and that he shall » at th« expira- 
tion ef the term of employment, deliver to the otoligee all 
moneys and other things in hie hands belonging to the eto- 
ligee and oeneludes by saying, "then this otoligation to be 
void, otherwise to remain in full foroe and virtue** In 
the ease at bar the condition in the bond «K>ntaina isore 

than %im ««^r* r»elt«l of Xhti t«rme 9f th* «ontr«at 
lnT0lT«d, it st%iet that th« oondltion «f thff bond 
1ft thait tte* oVllgor wbaAl do co nad fie, th<m the tioad 
to !)« Told; otli«?r«la« to rtimlu in full foro« «nd virtutt, 
Wlukt th«t Iftn0U««« mMi>n«, in our opinion, is p^rtuotJ^ 
eXtinr, nnmely^ tkmi the bond is to b« void in tlw «ir«nt 
that th« •Miftsr d««s th<i things that ttaft oonditlen 9f 
th« V«nd Mtya ha shall do « oth«rwi«« %h» lM»nd is te r«» 
Miin in fail feroe. ^ain quoting the IwigUAge of th« 
Murt in li«iigf«llo« r, l4oer«|E(»r» 56 Minn. dl2» **To thus »«• 
e«rtAin what th« partiss int«nd«d \^' %Tm instruz^ont «x«* 
Qiat«4, i» striotijr oonsietont with th« rulo that a suretjr 
i'T! not te \>«^ held bojr* nd the eontraet h» has «ntorod into* 
iKhmt ai»nt:raat ho has oade is to be dotorsmined by th« aans 
fuXos of in tor pro tat ion as aro ap -littd to othor oontraots^ 
thft poxpooo boing to aso^rtain vhat h« has bound hlsisalf 
to, Whon that is asoertaia«<l, his obligation is striotl;^ 
liaitod to it.* It w^s not error for the trial eourt 
to sustain th« demurrer te tho sooond eount howoYor, for 
the reason heretofore set forth. 

The dMsurrer uras eustained to the thir* tuMi 
sixth oouats on t'tm ground that th«^ al^ deolared on itenui 
whioh it appear«fd, freta the faee of tiie oounts, vere not 
witl}iA the Qondition of the Instrument sued u]^on. fh<sse 
oounts did not set ftut the bond in haee yerl^ but alleged 
that on January S, 1912 the defentisnts, by th«ir oertaia 
writing obligatory, Jointly and eoTerally aefcnoul edged 
theaaelTes to be held end finaly bound unto plaintiffs in 
the SUM of $2&00. The (»»unte further set forth the sub- 
etanee of theooiMlition of the aaid writing obligatory. 

followed by Allegations »0 to certain allied breaohos 
»f the sontrnet. Th« sixth eount all*^g<Pd a Vrf'aoh in- 
TOlTing th« old premium aooount nnd it wjifi th*»rfff©r» 
subjeot to d<Ka:urr«r aft wa» tkr? oaeo vfith th« second count. 

We ar© of the opinion* howeTer, that th«» third 
count VHS net subject to this objection. 7hiK count re» 
cited th« subatonce of th^ bondi as did the eixth count. 
Xt then proe<«Qd«a te aaai^ ae a breach of th<; contract* 
that tt»oa£ ether thin^se it wa£ the dut>' of Flint to plaoR 
all inmirjinoe written by hira ttoough the plaintiffs* office, 
which h*5 did not do but on iovember 30, 1912 he placed oer- 
tain insurance throi^h the office ef t. 0, IiOMay k >e. And 
for further breech it alleged thata^ong oth*r things it was 
the duty of Flint to collect Moneys du** en insurance pro- 
siiums and after deducting hie coamieeien to account to tho 
plaintiff for th*» balanc«» due them and that he did "when 
so eaployed a« solicitor** an January 5. 1912 collect from 
one Baldwin, $20 of which sum $15 belonged te and was the 
Bjoney of the plaintiff and that. Flint did not account to 
thtw for said siua or any part th- reof . The count alleged 

another breaoh in aintilar lan^uaise as occurring on Uay X» 
1912 wtenhe ;a alleged to Iiave collected ^2&9.10 froa .. D, 
Ju«ti & ;:>on, of nni sh sun $233,19 belonged to t te plain* 
tiffo, for which he did not ao count to them. It iP cjon- 
tended 4hnt th- ae allegev breaches are not witnln th** coa* 
ditiori of thr bond nnd t>vet. th»'y are also subject to da* 
Burrer, on th*; tfrouad that the^ are indefinite and un- 
•■^rtriin In that it ir. not allegew what th<' ipeoified amounts 
wer*" for. While the tunounte isTolTed are not referred to 
as pr«aiuae tm Ineuranco policies, it ie alleged that the 
datieQ of lint fto a eolieitor required him t© collect 



m»n«iyn due on La»\xrtm<» j^tr^mkmm for pftlioies ex' iasur* 
anec soIioit«4 «iiU vritt«a by taia and after deducting 
his ooflutiseions, to aooount to the plaintiffo for th« 
b&lanor <ttt« then «ii«i thisit Jlint did **in hi* «mployaent 
«• oolloitor* ooll«ot the «»ounte referred to aad fmil 
to Mooouat to th« plaint if fe for ti^ part that hoXenged to 
thoa. That thooo Biaoonto W4!»r« for ineuraneo pronduna 
le not op«a to any douM from the lajiettag* of the nount. 
2t is aXso oX«ar that the hr«aoh<»6 flkLX«g«d in tho oouxit 
are within th« ohligation of thf> "bond. 

Turning now to th@ motion of tn«» oo ^rt aa to 
thA firet« fourtH and fifth oouata. it wan not in aooerd 
with proper praotieo to d«i»ur to thoao oounto *&» «aiiri»t«d 
Iqr th« IsiXl of parti ^ilaro", hut rathor to .soy« to strlko 
th« bill of ,i>arti oularo from th« filoa if inwurflcient. 
1% appear* the d«fon<2ants did this upon tho h«?arlAg on 
tho ground that the oondition of th« hond whioh vma B«t 
forth in the hill of pi»rticularo in bawc? verba vao too 
▼mgtto, indefinite and uno^rtain upon which to predion te 
any liability. That ootion waa allftvod md pi&intiffa 
refuaed to fllo any further bill ol' ipartloular*. where- 
upon thn JBiuit waa dinaiaaod at plaintiff's ooote. Whilo 
the bill of partisular* was not eubjeot to the ebjeotion 
00 urg«d, for the r-^aaons wo imf». h«»j:et©fore a«t forth 
in what wo have hnd to any with reference to the deaurrar 
to the aoeond oount, we are of the opinion that it was 
• th(»r«iee defeotlYO and that the oo.rt waa wnrrant«»d in 
allowing tho motion to strike the bill of parti oulara trem 
the files. After eetting forth the hond in haac rerym, 
the bill of parti eulara alleged that on Beowaber 31, 1912, 
the defendant Flint aign^d^ exeauted and delivored to tho 

plaintiffs A of^rtain writing whinh v«« ft4dy«i«M»^ to ih«i 
sjad lAiioh road ae foXlo-»st *With regard to thf> •«tAt«mimt 
of aooount an slwwn fey the "bookB of y ur firra e«teiitt«4 
to me tedaj, I bog to say that I aokaowlodgo ny ofeliga* 
tien to you to t>)0 oxteni of |8SrS7.54, for pretsduaui ool* 
lootod hy a« on feusiaoss written through your office, for 
which I havo failod to aocmuat, oopy of which statwuent 
X incloso herewith. This a@«unt d06£t not oont«(mplato my 
entire indebtedness to your fins, th< re being still due 
from ao to yoa on old premiun aoootmt $133.75 and on old 
loan aooount #918«d4. Hor this latter itest you hold ay 
notes for ^500 aaAh." we havo already pointed out that 
ouoh iteas as Fl mt ituiy have oned the plaintiffs on tho 
old preniUB aooount and the old loan aooount, whioh are 
referred to in their bill of parti ciilare, eannot be aon- 
sid«>red AS within th<» terms of th«!t instrument ou«d upon. 
There is nothing in the bill of particulars to indioato 
that plaintiffs* suit is oonfin«>d to the eurront premium 
aoo'tmt on whioh ?lint aeknowledgoA his ind'^btednesa to 
the extent of f2a:s7.&4. Tho first eoont of the deolara- 
tion was general in character, re oi ting that the d<>fend» 
i3^nt8, by their oertain writing obligatory had acknowledged 
th<»mselTos to bo Jointly and severally bound onto the plain* 
tiffs in the sua of #2500 and although often reciuested so 
to do thigr had not paid the plaintiffs said sun or any part 
tht?reof. In th*i fourth oouat the plaintiffs after re- 
citing the execution of the bond and the substanoe of its 
condition, aXle«<5d that >'llttt failed to account for all 
moneys ooming i.nto his h^nde as solicitor durinti the 
tern of hiu employment, to the extent of |22£7«54, where* 

fer« th« plAlntlff^ had cu8t«4n' «:i danAS«s %o thiit «aui»it. 
In th«i flftl» 00 ant ftft«r aXl«ging th« exeoutlon of tii« 
bond mnd reoitlnff th« su\>etaao«> of Itn oonditlen, th«) 
plaintiffn »ll«i{ed a br«iA0h of ««ld oonditicm In Uiat 
Flint* at tlTff oxplration of his tera of «nployia«nt, 
fail«»d to d<?Xlv«)r th« eum of $^36C«SI9* whl^ vae in hi« 
honde and belonging to thoa, w]»»r«b|jr th«>' wore dosiagiNi 
to that amouat. liv^ of fidsrlt of olalB attaohed t§ 
th« ttaotidod d^olas^atioa statod tlttat th*^Tf. vae duo the 
plaintiffs tT0m %}» d«f«ndant« on aeoouni of the iMnd 
ftue<i upon, the rtxm of #306d«C9. from the allegationa 
in th<«eo three ooants and the Affidavit of alala attaohed 
th«>retOa together with the hill of |>artioul&r»t it io 
iapoooihlo to oay what it^uui the plaintif fo are euing 
for and whether or not the> aro laoluded within the 
terme of the bond on whiah their oult i» bated. The e* 
fore, the trial oourt propt^^rly allowed tbe motion to etriko 
the bill of particular*. 

S*or thr« error of the trial ooart in mistalninc 
the donor rer to th^ third count of the amended deoXavation, 
the Judj^ent is reveroed and Xhn eauoe i» reaianded to tho 
Glrouit oourt of (^ak County for furth«>r prooeedings not 
inaonoi»tent with the viewe expreoBod herein. 


8M • 84989 


16I.A. 624 

opinion of th« oourt, 

Tm» i» an ai>peal 1i>y tjn« plaintiff frea « jQ%Bi«nt 
fttr the a^f«iidaat«, 1)aft«4 uj»«n an in8truot«d fcrdlot, Tim 
tmXr •Titor ti*mi4pa9A is tii« d«ni«l of tlu» plaintiff** i^tien 
f«r a nonsuil. after th<R areuni«nt on t2»tt netiea (»f the <t«N» 
fandaiita for nn inotruotad Twrdiot ha<i i»«^«o oonoladed and 
th« Jury reoaliffid to th«» jury 'hex, but >>?»for© tli?» oourt 
iMd instruot«4 tkan. 

In IMiooaAiar X1»X8 th« 4«f«n<iAata »ad« a notion in 
this ootirt t<) otrlka tha bill af exo^ptiont' fro« th« trano* 
cript of tJia rooord 4iia<i to affira the Judgment, At tho 
aano tiaa tho plaintiff laad*'. a Qount«r motion, «u^tj:erting 
a diminution of th« r«ieord and aaking leare to file a 
•uppl«m«tntal trnnneript of th« r<!»eord. At that tii8« the 
fanaer iaetion was denied and the lattor wae allowed « and 
the i»laxntiff filed a aupi^lefaentHl tmncaript, whioht con* 
iained an er^ier entered in %he trial oDurt, apparently in 
an effoJTt to ueet tho d«f«ot in the tranaoript of th* re- 
oord ae originally filed, which w»o th« imeie of the defend- 
ant* « atet-ien to etrike. 

a 3 

9riXi»r of thtt trikl oeurt aw tiwvn b>' th* «u9i»l«Mi«ntal 
%rttjis«rl]^t filed lay ihn plaintiff* «aa tct -asld* and 
tia* 4#f'!»n4Ants then mtAe. a ssoiion In %iii» «ii>art «ttg||;«»t» 
lag a dininution •/ tim reoera raid aftking l«6r« to fU« 
a »ui>i.'l.<m«:ttnJl transcript ishovinc this laat order; thJLa 
iMtlon was allowed aii<u U^*^ ouitpiffiBMstal trimaerlpt wmm 

Aft*r t)v*a« varioue ataps hrtd been takmt* tha 
4«f«Bdttata renatra4 their station to etrlk^ th« 1»iIX of 
axaaptiona from tha raoorii anii affirm th« Jtiidgis<i«nt» which 
vao rosorvod to th« hear ins* 

Tlio Judfftaaut of *»hB avmX'slpmX Court of Chim^, 
appealed from, waa eatorod Maroh ^2« 1913. ?h« pluintiff 
waa allo««>d> olxtjr dn^s in irhlt^ to fii» a Vill of <»xoottlOBa, 
vhich tino wis neyor Axtond^d* Thi bill of exo«ptioii« waa 
net preaontod to %h« trial Jad^e wit^iin th« sixty <&aya« 
Oa the rovorao aido of tm la«t |>ai(0 of tim ^ill of exooptiono 
wo find tha following} *thi» l>ill of oxoeptlone s>r«'»<mtod thio 
^day to aio* Aotiag ahiof JTuotioo of tiai<» oouri aad date4 
t&la aiat day of ^ay, 191S. H. 0. Meran, Jadgo." On Say 
8a, wHioh «ao :;.a9 day aftor tte$ alxty daya }mA 9xpirmd, %km 
trial Jadsa, who waa Jud^fo ^ado, onte»red aa ordor dir«ctin« 
•tiiat th# Mil of ox««s»tt«ii» b»r<»io pr«»ont«d bo «Bd it ia 
kkev-oHgr a vi>roTad and ordorod filed auno pro twnq «e of tJui 
2iat 4ay of May, A. 1). 19ia«* 

in tli« oaow of tl^ J:'ooi>lg x&. Hpgonw»14 . 8fi6 111. 
548, thi? faata ioTulYOd w«r« aXnoat preoiaoXy ti^tOBO of tlio 
eaoa at 1»ar and in %h»% oaoo tbo Saprono oourt hftld that tho 
bill of exa«}j»tioaa wn« sabjoot to a B»tion to otriko, aa not 

h«Tia4l b<9«n propvrljr i^rem^nx'aa anaflX«id* Th« «ttM rule was 
followed In amiai>»r t r^ Junltei- A^ Jo .. 16X ill, App. 446, nnd 
«*i»*» J^» 'ygn^tor Xa. MHiMSSL* ^^*» ^i^* A»p. 72. 

Th« erd«r »absoc}uentljr imi«)r«a by Judi;« docn an 
«AOttn by the ogipplonentAl trans^orlpt of tii«» rwcord f4l«<i 
V tho plaintiff, w«r«Xj sot forth that acoordln^i to tb« 
reoortio of tho Itanioipal 'curt* ^ud^ti %a4« i«»«> not aittii^ 
in tint oourt on iiay 21 » lOXfi nn4 on tbai dat« Jiiuls« mmm 
mo oltting no an aotin^ Ju<ie;o of thft Mttaieipal '^onrt of 
Chloago, thia order of Jud^ 01«en*8 ««« Bub»e<tuently 
Taoatad by him on nM>tien of the d«if«n4ant«» otmr the plain- 
tiff* a ebJootiOB, on thA groujnd that it had b«<»n ont^rad 
without J^rt»^f^0r no ilea to the def<«tn4&iit» being given, la 
cannot aay that thp ujr) irt err«ti in vaofttix^ the or^er ir«f*>rred 
to* In any svant. the order vaeate^ was inauf^fioiexit to 
•ava this bili. of axoeptioiiA, for it did not diaolosa ottoh 
a r««ooB forth« failuTO to pr»««nt the bill of exoeptiona 
to the trial Jatt^e within Ut«^ ti»e allewttd, ar audb neoaea* 
ity for the nwio aro tvtne order af Umy m ma to bring the 
aaaa within the proTiwlono of »eo. 31 of the raotic Aet, 

Jhrra with that ar<i«r in th«? r«^oord tl»r« would 
not be euffieient baeia for t>i# n^tnopro tiff>o ardor by 
Judge Wade, for th«r^ wo dd atill be on abeenoe in the 
reoord of an affiraiatlTe ahawing of due diligenoe &n the p^rt 
af the plaintiff , by proper o^rtifioate of the trial Judge. 
Isaisa 2* Ohrenateiw. 211 ill. A|»p. 304, 

The defendanta* snotion to strike the bill af 
•aaeptlona, ttuat be ftad the aame i<s hereby allowed « mm. 
aa the only aaaignment of error filed in th^e <»art ie 

>MM«4 tti>o« til* MAtt^ra efintain<^d in tli« 1»U1 «f «3co«ptioii« 
•nd i»% on Ml/ atntifcla<»d in ifte ooasMn 1«« reoord »nA %h9 
blU of «xe«ption« hATlAg hettm. «trA«Ic«R, the Judgawmt «f 
Ui« Uiuaiaiipal c;ouri tou^t b«? ijrfiriD««. 



1^ • 


tili0« v^ 

MSMJa^ W/^KSMR, ^ Frank B«n<i«r, 

/] 2i O i.A* o 



HAK GbAJfiAk #t a! , 


•f iit« «»>un« 

By this Ajppval tlv> 4^f«n<Umt» «««k to rrrvrse a 
JttdgKAnt for $2t0Q0 rfto«v«r«(i b/ the plaintiff in an aotion 
far daaagaa naff(^r«4 b/ his in 1»«iii|l bittan by & (iog aXl^gad 


ta MaT« b«r«n ovnatf ead kept by th« d4»fandMita« 

Tte 4(?^arHtion oontaiii«<t four oeunta* in tli«» 
flr«t ef *hi»3fe olalntiff alles»<i thn*- t^ <lef«n<innt« 'w^r* 
tbii awwirs. po»ae»Btt4 of mi<i ^Jitaintalnad a c^^rtaln dog,* 
«hi($h th^ Icnaw wa» of a Yioioue faa<i ferQclou* dinpoeition. 
Xa %tkf saoonu ooiat plaintiff aHogOH that thr d^fendanta 
««r« th« oanars and pesoasoora of thDr teg "and negligantly 
a»d oareli^oftXy oaf farad it to ba about th« proisl^ao,* and 
kaa« that tUm dofi was I^abX? to attacdc and bito mankind* 
Tlia third oount nXXogoB that Xh^ dafftntiantn *wara tba oim«ro 
and poooaosad of and aaint^inod a csortain dog a«d paradLttad 
tlia aaae to be about »aid pr««i««a*; t)mt tbc dag aaa of a 
farooioua diopoaitioa, linbXa to bite ttankind. all of wHieh 
defendant knrt«« ami <*thai thny parmitted oald dog to baoaaa 
unaooureXy famtenad to tiv> dog houoo iQf r<tacion of whlcta it 

bftoaja* lott»«i fund \mftTuin«sd Bn4 nut At X&x%«»* 7H« 
fourth tsouni «aii to %hf eff »ot thAt ^ihn <i»f«n4s!it« n«gll* 
gtntljF an4 Q<j(jrel««>$ly 9«r«dltt«ci th(» ^g, to )»« k«pt and 
harb«r«d ta SAld 409 tu»us« In sAld ^a»l« i»hi oh dog «a« 
known to lie of s forooious ai«i}is»ition,* ?h«' a«f«n<l«ata 
pl««flo4 thio gon«ri»l iRBu« And th«>' aIbo filed sp«»oial 
plL^ui in t»hl ih they d«nil«4 that th^y oimed, p«>iifs»ec«<S 
•r iwlntsliied the <tos in nu«8t.ioi» sund «ll«g«(i thi^t thojr 
did i»t tttff^r <Mi4 imrmit It to b«» abo^st th*8ir pr8«»l8«», 

TlM 4#f«ina<«nto (jentond that t^f triiUL oourt 
•XT«4 In overruling t)t«lr je^otionst nuide »t th* oXoeo of 
th« pI«ut,ntiff*o oauio And a«gain m% the cAoeo of oli tho 
evid«tio«, 1»:^ whiab thoy aniced the oourt tt< find %h,em not 
l(uilty. la our opinAon theoo latotiono w«r« j>ros»?'rXjr eiror- 
ruled, Th« 4«f<nidjmie furt^etr oontoad th«it th«i evid^noo 
i» insuffla&oat to oJbovi timt they oimed thr Aeg or ^^pt 
it no ahargod in th« doelAn^tion* V« 1»eli«ve it is. 

71US reoord oont»kins evidend« from ithi^jh xim 
JtiYy tirould be Justifi«d in bellorliig thttt th«; d«« la 
queotion oithor bolongod to thft defendnato or had for 
oorer*! 4U«ya prvriouo to the oocwoioa in ^up«^tien \MNai 
kopt or hnrterod en th«ir ipr«»iso» with thf^ir kao«l«de« 
«ad oonooBt, th«t it v/io being k«pt on iho pronives )iQr 
[thrnxk a« • vatoMog, «tnd that it }m,A ». Tioioao diapooitioa. 
to the knowlodgo of th« d«f«nd«ni»^ 

tlio dof Ofisiaat Jaajda «•« a oentraotwir. Vim and 
hi* vifo, thA othnr d«fer.aant* jointly ovnod pr«BMli»«o ooa* 
tainiag thro* buildingo, ono a flat building, in tho firot 
flat «ad baaoment of whiah defonaaato livod, Tho plain* 
tiff lived with hio paronta in th« rtttkr on the oeoond 

f le«r of th« I>ttil4ing, Th» pr«»ii««& iftolu(i««i a ^«kr<l in 
«hioH tl^ dsfemtiant Kl«J4* lc«i>t i>lAnk«» •<mff0ltiii»K aa4 
vuoh aaioriftl mad »Xsq » horfi« »na wA^on. ?hi"-« wne ;%l»e 

Idftjdii and hi* won in Ufi« eeatractin^e ^uiiin(»»»« th« 
4«f«Rd<uiit* hrid hnd a dog for •WY^xml y^arv l»ut it had 
4i«(l iHiau» tia« )»«fer« t)Mi 93arr«no» in qu«8%lon. that 
4»c w«s le«i»t in A d0g houi>« •wn^a by Elftjdtt n^^ lo^^ted 
in %h» y*rA, Th« a«f ^ndmntv l»4 ft<»T«rftl t«n«n%s and 
ihttir fwsili«« inoluil^d a nuHib«r ftf QhiXdr«»n all ef vfaea 
tt«9d ttw jrnrd as « i>X«Q«! in whiajai to play., ^ith the d«f«nd* 
«ai*« onafttni and nt th«ir lirritfttion. th« dog whi'^h hit 
thd i»latntiff mi» a larger dog« standing two and a half or 
thr«« f««t hi^h« i?laintiff»a father t*i»tifi#d that wh«wi 
h« got h»9i09n th^ day plaintiff was bitt(»n h« a»k«d Mrs, 
EXaJd* what* bad happened imd nhm r«pii«d. *Oar dog hit 
hi« u9*} thskt aa H« atoad en hie V^.ok p&roh he heard a<»B« of 
tha Man tali Philip Kla,1da, d«f«n4«ftt»« »©«» a« h« «««• in, 
*irou7 d«g hit tha hoy fre» upatair***; that I'hilip then took 
tha dag aut af tha d«g hausa, where he had hs«n put after 
hitittg tha ^aaintiff, sno put him in their ha»«ja«ttt kitohanj 
that he had aaen tha dag on tha pjrasjiBes thrae or four dnyo 
hafara hi» hoy wao hit tan, during vhiah time it ana kept ia 
d«fandaat*s dag hauaa} that h« oav ttra. Klajda and fhilip 
foading th*! dog; that when hfi would p»o« hy thr^ dog houaa 
tha dag aould on«p at hi« and harh and thut on ono oa<»»i<»n 
ha aaid to ar*. Klajda, •¥«« h«*ta get a «o«n dog ia tha yard 
thi« tin*.* to whiou oho r«pii«d, "ti^o, h# will ha a good 
watoh d©g»; that the dog *ao firot on defendant* a pr^ia*?* 
«B»day nl&nt (plaintifr «a« hitton thc^ fallowing Friday) and 

thai hm Ymrkvd all that nii0it, 

Th« plaintiff *s sunlhar t««tifi«(l ifmt ahe vaw 
th«) dog in qu^Ktien about the pjro^n^B four or fire dsya; 
that «t« she paased th« tfog on a numb«r of oo^msicna dur* 
InK that tin»« th« dog vovivd iuaip up «m<l Isark at her; that 
•he r««(%rk<>d to Ur»m fiftjdn, *':Ceu got m mmtm 4»g about the 
y«y*," to whidla th<? lfttt'»r r«|>Il«d, •Y«», h« is » good 
vatGh dog, he take the burglars out of the /ard**; that the 
witnese said further « *I am afraid to send the ohildrea 
down** to whlih Mrs, f^ajda r«»pli»»d, "lie might bite them 
but he i5»n* t »o dangerous*; that this me the t£tird d^y 
the dog vas in tac yard; that she saw X^iJLip Klajda feed the 
dog oaoej that ^\e day before the plaintiff ivas bitten she 
•a« ilrs. Klajda oone frcn her kitohen vith a ,)Iat« of food, 
and ;»la4* it Vside th^ dog house an4 spewk to the dog{ 
that upon r«?turnitv; from work on thr <iny plaintiff was 
bitten and learning what had happened ah'' went to th«» drug 
store to whioh plaintiff had be«'i taks-n ana thr«re^ wet Mrs, 
Klajda, who said "our dog bit your boy"; that she first saw 
the dog in <|ueetion on Tuesday prerious to the day the plain* 
tiff was hitt<»n; that the dog was ohainec to th^ dog houss 
by a ohain a "little thinner" than a lead pensil. 

the plaintiff's brother Oeorgs, eleven years of ags, 
testif i«^ thfit the dog was aboat the prcsaioes four or fiYO 
days before jtiaintiff was bitten; that on the day previous 
he went ints th^ yard mna "the dog got on hie two hind feet 
and opened hi a nouth and growlod and barked at as"; that 
the dog was looss •when he *as bitin4i ugr brother**; that on 
the day before plaintiff was Mtten, Mrs, .^nLaJda same out 
and said, "keep away froa thnt. dog before he bitee you*{ 



Ximt the &th$r d&g 4«f'm4faits had w«i» killed t«e> or thre« 
wmkm before plaiutiff wmm bitten, 

C»« C<$«»Ii« :^bl^i teidtifiea tTlmt &n tim 4a^ 
plaintiff tnui bittea sk4? v«iit to (di«f «a^0»t^e prf<^eesi to 
eali on h no^iMka friead «i»e i^c sue ef iii«^-ir i«ameis aad 
that •« sJa€» wat iJucoiu^h the rear yi» the ^^ ataire bIm 
•aw tlie <i«g "Ijrli^ laslf ia th« <tog Itea0« «aii si^wiag M« 
t««tl» • » * ttie 6€S 0lMr»«4 M» te«t% «Eid gx««le4i.'* 

Oa« SalftR Ummpkm., vho lived In tit« iMrtl flat, 

%««tifi«<l ti^ dog «■.« on ^«f«n4euat*e Freeai?»«e tixr«e er four 
alffcts b«f©r«9 plaintiff »a» liitt«a; tl»t "a friend gave the 
dog to th^m ;eo4*ijr or Ttt««?4»^. Se ^uld»*t sleep aft«r 
Uttti ea aeoesust of him hevlls^.* 

yoiT t^ C^feit3«, kr«, i:ia44a (l«ni«4 th/st aoavera** 
tiOBS to «hi<^h plaintiff's ]^r«nta ^4 tesiif i«4. ^h« ftai4 
ttet the fir»t ii«»e oSm a«« Vus i^tig im« on the s^nUc^ of 
the dajr plaintiff «a» Mtt«n$ t^t hm ^me tjN»a ti«cl to tlio 
4eg I^ufic; that ahe dlti ijot direct tlj'J ^©g le be ti^tt tJ^re|f 
that she aerer fed tri« 4eg. 

Frank OaJda« tho Qth^r 4ef encant, testifi«4 that 
h* w«»t to ^j^msftnii on Weitaeoday aornlns a»d get ^oie Saturday; 
that he aevar oatr the dog in qu«8tloB; ths^t thi»r'^ w»m i» dog 
tH#r« vn«» h« l«f t on W©4B€«day; tftai he aoTer knew th« ^g 
was th^'ire oatil he got hosa; that h« did net diroet hio wm 
to lc««p the dog for hi«; that h«? dida* t mtnt a deg ^o'e^nd 

Cae Odiwngny, a labor<*p employed bgr Oa^da, oald 
ha saw one Jablanakl, another fl^plejree, tie %)i» dog to the 



49$ houB« ih« dagr hf>t9T« plaintiff wa» bittm; thfxl he 
didn't ntft! ri«J4ft «ith«r of t>MD»* two dnys, 

Philip Klftjdft t#«tlfi«(i timt ho ]siad n«V9r f«4 
th« deg or 9«ttod it «ui4 the first tl»« luft «T«r sow it 
vfts «rh«n h«( i;ot hoiae on ifriit^^ ftftcmeon aft«r plaintiff 
hctd lE>»«n Mtt«n. 

^Ablcmnki teetifif^d h«» ii«4 the dog up to th« 
dOK bouao about 7 0*0X0 ok Tliuradajr meming** t>if? day tio» 
fore plaintiff vao Mttea; that li«> loft th« pr«mi««e tlMkt 
saomins ^^a^ r«tum<!fd I»i(» Fridojr aft^rttoan mfter plain* 
tiff hmd l»««n bitten* 

On tlbde «Tia««no« th« oourt properly oulmittod 
tho oooo to th« Jury and th«jr wero juotifiod in oonaLtid* 
ing tiiAt the 4«f«naj%nto w-rv the owners or k<«<9p(9res of thi* 
dog, Th« e^idonea wro i^t diroot oonflidt. If thM giiron 
l«y plAihtiff*e ^tnooooo w«r« trao* «iid «• oumttOt oay front 
thR record that tho Jury «ao not «arr»ntod in beiioving 
thOM, h<*^ dog woo on dofoaamit** pro^ooo soToral Amy» bo* 
for tlM bit plaintiff* vith thoir ienowlodgo and oonoont and 
thoy hftd hia thexf* no a iiatoh dog. Tho 9vid«nc<» «o to IIlaJda*o 
ailog9d abo«no« i» uot wholly oatiof note ry,* not that it would 
taairo boon oonoluoiro ao to his liability if it ^4 boon. Tho 
jury ttight propf^rXy have ooneludod thot hie tostitaony wrio 
not truo. *rho tootltsoay of hi;* »ifo and oon ie otrangoly 
oilont ao to hio allegod abo«noe. lo hinaolf oayo at ono 
point in hie toat&ioony that he took iht} train for iiartmond 
frosi thtr La liallo station on Baturday nomlng. It io olg* 
nifioant that Mm. Raopka, who toatifiod for plaintiff. 
that th«» dog WRO on d«fontiant*s promiooe throe or four ai^ghto 


b«foir« plaiatiff was blit«a »nd had kept hnr ««Rk« with 
its barkiiiff slnoft the ^leactay or 7u««)4«jr ^rirrioua, iras 
net on wpttiikinK t4ra« wlvx the B«ai4«r» At tiinx, tiax* »3i<i 
•h@ tsstififtd timt »h9 and &rs. B#ttd«X', at th« time of 
th« trial ii«r« "not ^uit« goc»d friendn* itind ah^ 9n.i(i that 
right ajrter thf oocjurrwnct? in qucctioa (on i/«t,ardL»y) cl**- 
fsndant SXaJda, hit oon And 'ir, Kuaa (tHe ttl4«rmftn of th« 
vard in irrUah t>i«^ livod) o«!s« to ««» h«r anc$ 9>t« told 
th«^ th« Mmmm thiiigo Khe testified to on tho vitn«»» 

Ae to th49 dog*« vioinus dharaot«i> nnd die^ottl* 
tion to bit« 9«opl«, and 4@f«ii»d«nt*«i knewledf^o of that 
fftot, if the Jury b«i ieTOd ur, B«?nd<Mr*« toctij^ny to 
tho «ff«ot that ho told Ura. EXaJda th«!y^ had a aoan dog 
in the ^ard and that ehi^ answered "Too, h« will b« a «ood 
watch doff", and Hro. Bimd«r*o taotlMony to the aaao of foot 
aikd bar further tastinony that aha told itre, Klajda elMr 
was afraid to havo th<? oMXdren go do-m in tha j^ard and 
that Mrs. Klajda r«i»li«^d, **hft aii^ht kita than, but ha 
isa^t so dangerous*, stnd tha taetimony of G«H>rga B«»ndar 
that ^re. fJlaJda varnad hlM to *'k«ap ava^ fron tliat dog 
before he bitea you" * an<i thf? teetimeny of the saveral 
vitnesftes «ho eaiU th« dog had Justed at them and anapped 
at th»!m, in oar opinion, thr.^ w^r«* juatifiad in ooncluding 
thftt » aaae had been nade out for the plaintiff on that 
issue. It was proper for the jury to take into «»n«ider» 
ation on thin is«sue, Buoh OTldenoa an th(>r« was tending 
to shew that the dag was keyt by the defendants ae m 
W&t^ dog **nd usually ohaiaed up, g.Jk 4« B« ii, Qo* ▼». 
JKuehkttOk . 9© III. Ap^. 268; Ci eeierakj Tj^ Heremnakj . IftS 

■/, -f 



111. Aj?f». 113; binrlak Xjl J»»lCOwiiUt . 2i.8 Hi, Aj?p. 42©j 
^a>mk« Xa. yrl*4wriglg« 1*C n,i, 2?.4; iAoninoa^ry i^ fiaSSiait 
35 La. Ann. 1C91. 

It la 9Pnt<»n<i«<i by th«> d^fena^mta tirutt Xhny 
«aanot !>• liabl"*' for the Injuriem «uff«*red fey th« i^Xain* 
tiff «¥#n though it b« oonnii^rod that tiiP «irl<ience provoa 
tb«y Gwn«d or i(fti>t th# dog In qu«etloa and ttiat it h&4 • 
▼Iciou* diBp •Itiea and was li«kbli» t© Mt« »a»nklnd and 
that th«»y kntwi of thl» latt«r f not uali?«r. it it further 
ei^wwn thai th«jr w«re n«^llg«nt in k^^ping Xhn dog ?*nd 
t^tat b>r r«a»on of »u<^i neislig«iia« Uxn dog ««» at largo* 
end thoy hevo oallod our attt»ntion t© 6«v«ral authorities 
to that offest in otiwfsr Jurisdi atiuno. Th«t la not tho lav 
in this otKto. It vuo hold by thl» court In ^hlnttrand f^ 
Blahop * 38 1^1. Apr?. 424, timt one who, with knoivXodgo 
of ite dangeruum prcponoitle^s, jc«e90 n dog aoouetened to 
attack or bite aaankind, Ir ^rlaa faqle liable in »%n aotlon 
for damagoo without proof of noglig^n®* «r default in Um 
■•curing or taking oaro of it, quoting Haawond y^ Moltoo> 
42 III. App. 186 in wHlRh thr= eourt Rnld, "the glet of th« 
aotlon le not th« «ann«r of kweping the Tioioue anlnal, 
but the keeping hisa at all with knowlodgo of th<» vioious 
proponoity." the followirug oanoo aro to th« oaao offset; 
yianoborg t^ Baain. 3 ill. App. 531; ^%vm»9 Zsu Mlifflt* 
22 111. 14©; llolt Z&. M-yere . 47 Ind. App. 11©; JUtygw T* 
.th. $3 0^0 »iato 101. 

In aupport o?^^ th«>ir oontwntionfi d«fen«i«nto haro 
oall*'<S our attention to iho aaao of 1>omb» Tj, Hollgabook , 2&« 
111. 338, In our opinion this <»«« rather oup^orto the 
oont«ntAon« of %hm plaintiff In th« oaao at bar. On th« 

4 X*'" 



firttt t.rl«l of ih«; ««8« olte4« the oourt (ilr«etftd a ▼erdiet 
f«r the <l«f«aa»iit at %hf oXoae of th« pl«intlff*B «Yla«*Ro«, 
widi'sh d(^f«ni;^ci,aiB «eiit#nd shouia Imtv l»«»(in th«» action of 
th« trial Qourt In th« {Mtee »t bar, 7h« App«ll&t« oourt 
for tlMi tloctend Motriet r«VPrB«d the judgfJifint and r««aHndftd 
tho OftAt for a now trial in 14S III, App. 459. hclding that 
th* court hifitdi errod in nuatainin^j: the obj<^otlo;s to the 
off4>r of plaintiff to pr<»T« that aft^r h* had b«>«n bltton 
by d««f«n«tffir)t*» dog, tha defoncttuntt hmd atat«d that Hr taad 
put th« dog ia tha oaro of a friond, upon Win«;lng hi« 
to town on thaooTuaion in question, to be tiad up and ktpt 
in a butohar aliop »nd t^iat he axpaoted that would to« dona 
and that the dog would not b<$ panaittad to run at large 
and that hie objaot in doing this was so that the dog 
would not hurt anybody. It wan urg^u by th«T daf^noant 
thftt it was not »)rrer to rejact tnia ti^itiewoy aa it vaa 
not oufficiAnt to al^w th>4t th^ dog was linbl'^ io attaok 
and bita mankind, nor thnt th« de fen-ion t knew the fact 
and that thaT@fov«« «T<m if th« tantiisony Had ba«n admittad, 
a o«ae voi.ld not have been aiade out for tha plaintiff. ?ha 
oourt held that the aHigad reiaarko of thi^ defendant w«t9 
oapabla of two otmBtruetlone, one to th*- »ff«ot t^Hit d«» 
fondant know the dog wouid be li««bl@ to hurt eom<?body if 
ha wao i^artBittad to run at Imtn* and tho oth^nr that h« wao 
ignojrant of tlaa jiairaotar of the dog anu that for fe>ir 
that the dog ai^ht have atm« vioioua habita not known to 
tain ho 4ouoe.i tite do«! tc he tied u;^ by way of yreeaution. 
the oourt ha Id that tim trial act urt waa not nt liberty to 
dat<^riaina what M«»nlng should be attribute{^ to the lang* 
uAga aojjight to b«» proven but that tb«> tcetiMony offered 
ahould ?iava been rtdititted onA that the iaeuea ahould have 



I t<t»qmit 



been fia)mitt«t) to tho Jur^. On the re- trial of the i»9« 
th«r* WiM a TurUiot and JuOga^nt for tn« i;>lalntiff. Tii« 
«t«oiaien ef tl4« Appellate Qourt on appeal froa that Jud^ 
aftnt «i)!9««r» In 17ft Itl. App. «2, In affirming th® Judg- 
aeiit it »aB held, «»ftng «th«r thi«gB, that on the «Tidi«no« 
which was rejeataU an th<f first trial but a4Bdtt«ci on the 
••Qond trial, and t)i« furth*»r evidftnce bj- witn«©eo8 t>»t 
as they paenad tho place ffh«»r«? %h» dcg «aa ebaln^^d uj^, 
the dof barlf<td and erow^od «ad Jwi^ad at th«!a said e}<ow«d 
bin t««9th, «md thnt th^ '*ltn»»»«8 r<»narlc**cl to th«^ dafairt- 
ant that "th« 4og would bita normhody yet*, th*- <jourt woydd 
not be 4tt»tlfi«d In dlRturbing th« Tirdlot of the Jury 
which Iteid be<m APi»rov«d by th* trial jud^*. On this eeeondl 
trial of th« oaee the def<»mt«int had off'^rffa «Tldnne« tend* 
ing to ahow that the reputation of the dog had bren peaoe* 
able in th(? neighborhood wh^ire ht had been kept, that 
ahildrea vere asouetom^d to play with it vitheut hana and 
that the «itneet»«te in tjuaetion did net Vrnow of hie ever 
attaoklng a-^eraon. The Appellateeeurt did not determine 
whether the trial oourt oi^ht pTt}p»tX3r have a^aitted 
that teetiiaoay but held that under «11 the evidence, the 
defendant •»» not harmed by Hurt exelueion of the teeti* 
Mony Ttet«rvtni to. Tr«« the Jud«f^aet3t of the Ap;>«llate eourt 
affirming the judgjeent for the plaintiff in the trial oourt, 
th^ aau»f« i»» taken to the UuprmBm Oourt on a oertifioate of 
liaportanee. The Uupr«»*« Ooart rererae* the Judgment and ra- 
£&and«d the oauee aoXaly on tJje ground that tiw trial court 
had arred in euetaining objeetione to the eridenoe offered 
by defendant, Ui w>ii ih wa hare rafarred, aaying that aueh 
ruling "amounted to holding that while the plaintiff oo^ld 


pyoT* two inv.t&i\9*^ tenAing. to t;h09 ^ Tisluun prop«nftit>, 
th« 4«fonaft]iit eould not a»«t or CT«xoam« suah eTiufl>no« by 
■howinf:; tbtti th<» doisp hnd no vuah proj^entfity.** Th« (»ouri 
•Aid further th&t if oonoIu6iv« proof h»d been nade of 
the 9royi9ntki1i^ of ih«} dog to attack and blto Bi&nklnil and 
kaOwl«ti4{« of 8U3h proponaitjf on th<? part of tho owner it 
would havo 1>4«n ini^iap«tent to vltow that &t so»« other 
tino th» dog VAO quioi and did not oxmlfoot m Vod dift* 
position but theit in the oeft« eitod the offered «Yi<i<mo« 
w«e ooDipetent and ssAterial teeo»u!*e th«» «v'idffn<3e' «.« to 
the Tioiouo nftture of the dof und defendant's knowledg« 
to that effect wee not oonolusire but «&• oontradioted 
and denied. It will be seen that the ground upon vhioh 
the Supreme Court revereed the jud^eient in that oato« haa 
ao BpoliG&tion to the ieeuee presented in the eae« at bar* 
On the other ieeuea inrclTed in the eaae eite4« which are 
einilar to ttoee preeented hf^re, the Bupreioe oourt did 
not hold oontraxy to tlw trial and Ap pel lata oourta but 
in acoord vit^i thesii. The gupr«ae oourt vaid that "the 
owner of a doi; le not liable for da^agae resulting from 
the vioious or mieohitrouB note of Uif anizsal unlt'ea he 
had knovledga of his mieohieiTOua or vioioue propensities 
and euoh knowledg« waet be proren * * *» The proof tm^ b« 
SMide bj evidence of facte and oirc(usiatanoei» from whioh an 
inferenee of knowXadga arises and it is not noo^asary that 
the owner or keeper knew timt th« dog had ooRtEsitted the 
aame injury » * •• If the owner of a rioious aaiaal knows 
its dtM.raeter and disposition to oo^Ut injury to laankind, 
he is liable for all injuriee he stay infliot. ( Stuaps Xi , 
Kellgx, 22 111. X4C; Mareau Vy Vcaattf^ , 83 Xli. 132; 

ii0ton<iimt» further oont<^n<i th«t ine plaintiff in 
preelu4«il from reorr^rlng lagr r«ftiion of his contributory 
a«giigoiieo la th«t th«r^ ie cy/idtmcse by 4ier(maent*e vcit* 
aooooe to th« ©ffeot thst th« olaintiff was throwing 
otonoo at the dog or striking it vith a stiok anvi tnia 
Oftttoed th<^ dog to ottftek th« plaintiff and \>it« hira. 
This oont«ntion onnnot b« made for two r'^ncono. ccunvel 
for th« daf«ndants stated on tbn tricil of the OK^^e that 
no qu«)otien of .jontrlbutozy noKl igone* wsa Inv&lveti,* ttao 
oaoo was triied and th# Jury inetruoted on that theory, 
D«fon<tant« did not roqueot tho oourt to i^lT^ any inetruo- 
tiOB baaod on ouch thtjory. That being the oase, dofcmcant 
oannot injeot that oontontion into the oaco no«. Further* 
anro, tho plaintiff wao a ohild four yf<nTP~ of ago and is 
thvrt^forc oonolu«iT«ly prscousftd to be inenpable of oontri* 
butory n«gli|len«j«», Hiohtordaoif^ T|^ Kelson. 281 m. 264. 
i)of endaiit* e oonu«ntion tlvat thf^ point th«y are urging is 
i»t ono of oontributory nenligonee but of "invitoU injury", 
io unton»blo, 

JNtfoadaatF oont«nd furthor that the trial oourt 
•rrod la the matter of certain instructions. It ie allegod 
that tha oourt errod in giving an tnntruotion reading a» 

"Tho Jury are further iastructod, that, if 
you fi»l from tho pr«j>onaf»rjin3e of tho ovid^noe, 
under th«? oourt'o iaotructiono, thwt at th^ tiae 
thi vitneoo Fiotro-vtiki t«»tifiee th(' boy plain* 
tiff »ad*> o»?rtHin Btatwaents relative to thfi oo- 
Gurr«noe In qu'^gti.on, that e«id boy was under 
five years of age; that even if you altoulc find the 
statOBOuts attributed to hita, by ^riid witness, vera 
nado, aoTor thole ail, owing to hie youth, said state* 
aents of the boy should bo reoeiTca by you with 
axtrewe oaution** 

t» «*»iK^ 

• 13« 

th« plftintiff w«i» in th^ Arua »t>ore» th« <ik»«rt«ir «t»k«'d 
hi«, *ii0« did thliB )Mp>p«n,* and tli»i Ih*" ohild Mdd t}mt 
IM bad V«>m throviRff «tnn«» at the 40^ tm^ hitting him 
witM tti^^a oad tlie ^k»c JtaqM^ «n fain aad thr«ir ktM down 
$mA Mi fai«« 

Att»tt»iii« that th» iniit3ruati«n eettpliUatd %t 
thould not h»v>* b«»«n i(:iT«n« it 9(innot be ooaBiiaered r«* 
vdrslbl'^ mrmr for it mnas norm tmrvmhXm to d»f«ndaatti 
than t« pisiintiff fey tH« Jujty oo,^i«i prsperl/ iaf«r fr«» 
it that th«^ hiad a right to oc>n»ia«r th« l&ojr*ct ailt^ged 
stAtOMintft in mniciag up th«ir mindm «n thf* i«stt«» jirc* 
Bent«»<i, wht'r«A«, f«r th^ r^asion* already etat»d, th« 
Jmr/ Ahould h»v« h««<ti told, aat tJoat th«!^ shnuld <Kiaeid«r 
th« «hild*0 ttat«»i»ttt« witM txttmm OHUtion imt thftt they 
ahauld i»t ««n«idar th«m at all* 

Par rnavona w« h»T«? alreaa/ Btatwu, the in» 
•tnscttea in vhioh th<^ jury v«r4F t»l that plaintiff cseuld 
not W harrod of a ri«;lit ef aetion hjr iraaaon of any alia«;«d 
ttontritsutory aagligonea* in tri«i» of hie a^o, ef whiah 
d«f«n<ijsmt« ooa^^Xaia* vaa a oorroot otatonont of th^ Xk« 
a9i>lioahlo to this oaaa. 

I>«f«nfi8int» akao <K>Mi|^laia ef an inatruetion givoil 
the iury mhitth r^ade a* follewo: 

*Th« Qourt inetruott th«» Jury that if /ou 
find for t'i'm plaintiff, yiij »ill be r(^<|uir«d to 
d«ti»nUiR« tho two ant of hi?- <iitnia4a<^o« In aetor- 
ainiac the anount of de«mfi;'^R plaintiff is entitled 
to Tf^mrmT in this aasi», if any. th«> Jujry h&To « 
riicht to and thtiy »)»»ul a tako into oon»id«(ration (th«) 
natujco and oxtent of plaintiff* e pbyi^imX injurieo, 
00 far as the* aaao arff 9iio«n by tk*' oriuonoO} nia 
ftuf^ftringo in body r^sultlnc frou- such phyeioal 


iajuriff* anu «ueh tvkrthmt CRiffering mid pligrslMil 
dienliUitjr, if an^r, &• iiM» jury n&ay b«lteve fron 
th« eYia«n?j*> h« ii«6 »Miitfltin#€l or will »u«taln hy 
T<>m»en of eu«}) injuriee anu f^m^ find for him ftutih 
•uiti SL» in th>? j««ifCft<?nt ©f tH« .lury, unci«»r Xhm tiyi-m 
(l*iifl« snd inntruetian^ of thf ^oart* will bo m 
f»ir oofS|»««»«tion for thr Injuri-'p he h** sustain* 
«d or will Buetaln, if »njr, fm fAr «t« euo^ daarngft* 
and injuri*;* ^ro olnim«a mii4 iillagftti in th« o«el«rft« 

It i« d«f«nuant*ft 8ont«tntion that this iRAtruotioii 
fttithorisod the jiivsr. in ootijMtinc Xh^ attmmmn to b« ttinurdod 
j^loiati'^f in etk»m %h9y found th« Itsuffo for hiai, to inolud« 
M« !••» of 9iimii^ oAiMoity. In aur opinion tht Jury oould 
wit ronoonably &!▼• th« in«tru«tiea ouoii » monning, Mo?@«T«r 
tlM»r« is iM> eonplftiat thisit the Jjudgnont io «xoe»fiiT«, imi 
th»rtt oould latkr4ij bo in ricrw of tho ^«ry ooriouo injurioo 
thio plnintiff roo^^ived. 

ethor orrom olTO urgod "by d^t^nA&atu with reg«krd 
to iaotructlono! >»eth siren, rc^fuood iind aodifi^d. it wo iidi 
••rvo fW pur^oBA to 9omia#at on tfeuBB h^^ro in detail. W« 
ISMVO tforofulljr oonoitiorftd oil of th^m onti «ro of tho opinion 
tlMt no oirror rnio oonaiittod Igr th)<!^ oourt ao oent«tt(t«d« 

TOT thn rttaioono otntod tho jttdflnont of tho Sujporiov 
ooiurt is affirmod. 

274 • 2462 





W, J, M"?«fUAK OCail^ANY, R aorpo 
at leu* 



216 I.Ac 6 25 

WU PH'^UXDXSa JUilTlQl tmMiUm A^lUmed the 
•9inl6a of the oourt. 

By thlB «ppeca the defendant aeelce to r^Teree 
m Jud^ent r<|0OT«r«d by the plaintiff for the oun of 
#556. 60. 

The plaintiff alleged in ite etatement of alalia 
that the defendant was the aeeignee of a o^^rtaln leaee in 
which the plaintiff wae the leoeor and that for fifteen 
awathe eueoeedlug eald aoelgnment the defemlant had paid 
the plaintiff tJie monthly rental etipolated in the leaeo, 
and that ©n or about Cotoher I. 1912, V agreement ©f the 
parties, the lease was oaneelled, and it in further alleged 
that at the tine of euch aanoellation the defendant owed 
the plaintiff $356. dC; being the rental of eaid premisee 
for the aontho of oay to Uoptember ineluoiTO, and that 
thereafter the defendant had paid #300.00 on aoeeuat of 
that indebtetineaa. leaving a balanoe due the plaintiff 
in the at» of ^SG6«ftO, which the defendant had often 
promised to pay but h»d failed to do eo. 

Bjr its affidavit df m^ritii Umi d«r<m -fltnt edlsged 
that it Ymd MATer Imd p>>BB4isiiioa of the prfmiBttH in <%ues* 
tloa, ftlthou^h it had fritquantljr dsraandied po»nm»siont «^<i 
that b«(3HUs« of tto failuro to oeouro th« pcssosslon, th« 
dftf«od«nt was oo(B|>oX1«<& to Xoaso other preodoee at a gro&t 
loss. Th« d«f«ndant furthor ol legos in ito affidaYit of 
Dterlts that on or about Ootobor I, 19X2, in erd^r to pro* 
T«at farther Xowo to thn dofandant, an agreement tme on* 
tored into by th« partios proTiding for a oane«lXatien 
of the Xoaoo a« of that dato« imd it is furthr r alXogod that 
at aald tisio tho defondimt «a« indebted to the plaintiff 
for tho ront, 9roTid«(i in tho »aid Xoaoo, for th« months 
of May to Sopt«»bc»r inoluslTO nnd that th' roaf tar tho 
dofendaat ipaid the suot of |300 on that indebteuji«os. The 
pleadings eofttained other aXlfigatieas which are not nater* 
ial to th9 issues inrolTed. 

The trial of this oauso eane on before the ^urt 
ivlthout a jury on February 5, X913 and the court poetponed 
the announoement of its decision. On Maroh 5, 1918 th«^ de* 
fondant raade a notion for leaTO to file an aaended affidavit 
of aeriis, which motion the court orerx^led , and this ao* 
tion of the eourt is one of th«> errors assigned. In our 
opinion the trial oeurt did not itrr in oTerruIing this sao- 
tioa. the oaaa had been heard by the oourt a suanth pre* 
▼ioua to the maklns of the motion. The motion was addressed 
to the aouad diseretion of thft eourt, «ad in the absenoe of 
a shoving en the j^art of the defendant of some rassonable 
exeuse for not haTing prc^sented the defense sou^^ht to be 
set up in the amended affidavit of merits before the oas* 
was tried « ao far as the reoord shove, ve onnnot say that 


the eoirt o<MMiitea any «bui!)« of ii» disor«tion in ov<»r«> 
ruling th« woUoa." Oilt of -^hlc^^.o Y. Uoejc . 304 ill. 373. 

Cfs Ui« following d«y tJoe oo urt^ found tho 1»ku«o 
for tho plaintiff and aeaoas^d lt« cianai;08 at th« m\m of 
t556,dO, Cn tha haarintf of the eauao, %h«t plaintiff offer* 
od in ovidonce tho defendant* e affid&Tit of sierita and thara 
vaa no avidano* offarad by the dafandant. In our opinion 
tha ooatrt «&• not in error in finding tha ioauaa for the 
plaintiff. lrra«peetlT« of tho •loaurnto of %lm oentrovaray 
that axiatad betva'^n the partlea OTar thia laaao, th« 
otatfio^nt of dlaiia allttgaa and the affidaTit of laorita 
adaita that on October 1, 1912 (tiee and on«*hal.f yeara before 
the leaae waa to expire, wadftr ita terns) the partiea made a 
BOttl«n«nt of their dif f<»ren9ea, vherebgr the leaaa vaa ean* 
oelled »8 of that dato, and thndefendant undertook to pay 
the x^nt sailed for by the leaae up to that tiise* and that 
after that n^nt^mnnt wao itade it did pay the plaintiff a 
total of $300, leaving; a baL^nee due amounting to ^!:>56«50. 
Tho eanaellation of the lease ymm a good oonaideration 
for defendant* s undertaking to pay the rent duo at that 
tlno, erea if the defendant wao oorreot in ita oontentiea 
that it vaa net liable under th<? terma of leaee. 

yinding no error in the reoord, the Jud^^^ent of 
the fibtnioipal Oourt ia affin&ed. 

189 • a44M 


VXminXiff In "rror. 

0MI0A6C hAxlvairs ccmpahy, 

CAliO HAIL9A& CO}ii»AKi, <tnU 
Jai^AHY, op«?i»Ung Witf«r 
t)M! na»4 and 4tyl« of 

aHioA^t^ suiOTACii hrnm. 



0« TO 


216l,Ao 625 

MU. JUStiaK ©»0araOR 4«lW«r»(t th« opinion 0f 

tho oeurV* 

yrtutk t* kf«A4 brought «uit m^itlnmX ilw (lef«ad« 
aaia ttroot railwnjr o<tmptu)i4ii to reaoTcrr for peroonal !»• 
Juries, ThorA ««ub « T<»rdlot and Ja4gm«at in favor of 4#«- 
fon4«at» to »eTor»« whioh ttaio apptal in 9ros«ottto4. 

7ho rooorci 4i8aIo««a that at about ono e'oleok 
in tJM inenainc of totobor Stb, X915, tlir plaintiff* who 
was ilio otmor aa4 4riv«r of an auto«BObll«« vaa 4riTine 
OiJutk in Mio?iisan avenue, in m\i<m4g^t «e^^ "*)«« orooaiaff 
Xil^titooatJa atroet* tn« mtior^biXe ooXli4o(i with an oaot* 
bouB4 atroot <Mur aovoroly injuring Khv plaintiff* Moa4 
Iia4 boon in th<^ eab buainnan for aany yo»ra and on Ve» 
flW»rnin|E in <|u««tion he was at Mo aoouoto»«9d[ ainiut at 
the lAouthoaat oorncrr of Jaoieaoa beu ovar4 an4 itobaah avo* 
nuo. R« w«a th«B «agag«4 t© tak«^ four paatjongera to th» 

8»uth Sid« «1%«r«.thi9y 1 iT«d, Thr(!»<» of t)ntm sat 1» ihn 
ifiei4« of ili|t» o»1l imU nn« in front with tius piftlatiff* 

•at on tlae wo«t sl4« 9f the 0ab ^to h« pFoo«ed«»ri south. 

Plaintiff* « th<«ery of th«r <3a«« ie that h« waii 
driving touth at th<« rat« of t««iYft or fiftofm miles 
]^«r hotur} that whan ha was «om« 4i»t^n4«^ north of i^ightafio* 
th otraet. whioh «rot>ft<«8 Miohigan avana* at ri|;bt angles • 
h« look«cl to tha sovithwaQt to ««« whath«r a oar was a|rir 
froaohizig froa the trasts that th^ret was a Iradlding at 
th4> northwast oem«'r of Higbtoaath straet and Mioliigtm 
aToime ^ith a gXaas front on both straats; that ha 
looked throvi^ih thaee glass fronts snti saw th« oar ia 
quastion ooalng anot in Kifhte«nth straei; that h« than 
slotrad down t;ie maehino to about six or ai^ht miles j^%t 
hour when ha was at about the uorth side of Bightsanth 
street} that the street oar at this time had also slaok* 
ened ita spflod* ami Just before it reaohad the west side 
of Miehigiui (lYwiua was going about six or ei^iht miles 
vnt hoar; that thn plaintiff knaw of %hfn ordinanee whi<^ 
required street oars to stai> before oreeeiog boulevards » 
ana that as ^iiohigan aveoue was a beul sward, he knov that 
the ordinano<^ required the «traet ear to stop on th^ west 
side of Siohlgaa avenue before proeeedlng east; that when 
he saw th» street oar slowing d»wa« he thought it was 
going to sto9 in OMM^liaao^ with thi; erdinande; that 
th«reupon he glaaUKNl to tho east to ase<*rtain whether 
angr street oar was oeming from th»t direetion« thereb/ 
diverting hie attention from the oar to the wast; that 
he saw no oay apprenohing from th4» east aad asstnting that 


the car in question would obey the ordinance he inereased 

hie speed and as he 'reached about the north rail of the 

east/track he looked to the south and then saw that the 

ear in question had inoreased its speod and was alnost 

upon hia; thut he then, in an endearor to are id a eol* 

lision turned hie maohine to the southeast, but it was 

too late and the street oar struok the autoiaobile between 

the wheels on the right-hand Bide and turned it toward 

the east, alaoet demolisiiing the autooiebile and soTereXy 

injuring the plaintiff so that an aaputation of one of 

his legs above the knee was necessary. 

Defendants* theory of the ease is that the 
street oar aame to a stop at the wsst side of Miehisaa 
avenue to disohargs passengers. And at that tine the 
motorman looliad to the north and saw an automobile stop* 
ping at Xhti north side of Eighteenth street to permit 
the street oar to pass. At tMt Xi&e the plaintiff's 
automobile was about one hundred and fifty feet north 
of isighteentli street and was coming south at about thirty 
ailes per hour with the out-out open; that after dis- 
ohargiag passengers thir^ street ear proceeded eastward 
and as the front end of the car was a short dietssnce 
west of the east side of .aohigan evenue, the plaintiff's 
maehine aauishtd i»to the north side of the front end of 
the ear. 

Tliere was evtdenoe introduced tending to support 
•aeh theory, and as is usual in such oases, the testiiaony 
of the witnesses differed as to whether the oar stopped 
on the west side of th'? street; the rate of speed at which 
it was going; the exact place where the collision oecurred. 


. ■r>^iia 

•Btf the 999^4. at irhisli th« «utomobiI« was go lag* wmd 
«• to mhf»th«i'jt the atr^vt ettr ran into th« autCMHO)»iXe 
ar vhath«r t^ i«)ito:PEioblI« rnn into the street oar* Im 
th«^«« oirdunatanaf!>«» it 1» oXear that tha aaae mmt a 
propter &a<? to eubatt to tJbi« Jury. aa(l« «a auntie t aajr 
tbat th« Tftrdiot is againat the manifast w«i4i;ht of 
tha «Ti4«nQ« a« tbo i^lalntiff oont«^nd»* 

Zt la inaiatad tJa^t tten ar virt arrad in ooai* 
ji^illiiig tha plrnxntitt to anmrar aartain <|ii«atidna on 
c«>aa»»a3KaKiinatitm OTar o1»j«ationi. The pluintlff mut 
& witsftat in Mitt aim bahalf • 4Ut4 on <iiroae*axaaanation 
in r^Ks>onaa to a <itt(!!rtian, ha »«i4: *X aay the favtaat 
I 9y»r 4raYa thr< onr ar <f»T«r lautwA it ta ga «•• t^anty* 
fiva miles an haur,* *i, *Y»u never Arova it faatar 
than that?" •A. Uo sir, it ffouXAn*t go faster Uutti 
that." ^, "'Die i909 ao<i<»l Onrt^nr ear wa^ad not go 
■are than tw*inty«»fiTa ttiXes an hourf* A. *that aar 
wouldn't.* And than after axaniniag thc^ vitnesa a« 
to the BMnahaa&Mi and operatiaa of the atitoieiohll«« ^nd 
steether hs «i>uld »e<? straat oara ap^raaehing froa the 
east or the iraat. and ath^^r aiiattars at o&nsid^rahla 
length* the arooa-axaniaatian oentisuadt <4« "Md /6u 
oYer 4iriT« yi.tur aar mora tlian t-wanty-fiva «ilae an hour 
on Slic^gan aToauair* A. *I don't believe I «rer did* sir," 
%• "Voro you «Ter pi (dead uy for epaeding in thut awwo 
«UP on Michigan aTonuot* « and after an ahjeotion was 
ovemilad he ansverad that ha waa onoe or tviaa, «i, 
*|}idn*t they proTa in oourt that ynu were going as fast 
as thirt/ofiTO niles an hourt", ana OTer objeotion he 
aaa«Farod« A« "I den*t know, sir* not to ojr itnowladga 

tiMtjr 4idia*t«* 4« •*did you t«*tity in <»urt« or «4ait 
in Qourt, th>»t 3r«u i»»r« going wore than tw<!»nty»fit« iail**s 
per hour?" 0b4<»^tlon was ra&dr? ^ati th«? (ijourt tiskidi, **XnAimuoh 
•• hff has sal4 thAt Hie oar luMi novor gono «a<i oouXd not 
go OTor tir<^>i^*fiT« atil<$£ an )iour, 1 will let lUa anowojr 
ttMt quftotion," «»! th^ vltneefl «Ai4, *2 aon*t know, eir, 
I don*t r«a<sis\>er,* -<, "lon't it « faot thjRt In oao of 
your OARfto Cffio<«3r J«oob« irtio th«» Qffi^^'r vNi ftrr«i>t«»d 
/©a for «xo'»«»4ing th« op*** liMlt. nnd in tl»t parti* 
oular «*»« aroii A«U«itt«4 In oourt you w»r« going ovor 
t»*?»ty»fiv» ailee on hoart* Ovor o*J««tio«, th* witnaiso 
umitvo'rvd, •»© oip,* Aft»rwor<i« th<» cl«fen«« |pi^du9«4 
the pol&oo orfi<i«r who t««tifi#d, withe it tmgr o1sjootion» 
that h« arr«itt»(l th(* plaintiff about t«» months bofor* 
tho aool<A'»nt for «p«*<»<ling« And that at that tl»« ho 
wao going thirty or thirty^two lailoo per hovtr. hinQ^ 
tho plaintiff firot '^rou^;ht into thp ««»« the faot that 
ho had nmrtiT Arirtm hio mioaXn'K fsstor thun twentyfivo 
ail Oft j^r hour, thi»t it oouldi not go faotor than tiMit* 
ana Rlnoo thttr« wao t«oti»OQy off«r#d on hohnlf of the 
dof «n^ttit« t>mt Juot ^rior to th«! oollieion thc" pl» te* 
tiff* 8 asiohino wae traYollng »t %H*^ rate of thirty nlleo 
p»r h04r» IW04 einoe th«r« mtkn nn otoj motion to tho offioor'o 
tootii^ny* Tiai that h« had trroot^^ol th« jjlaAftttff for 
«9««4ing &nA at thot timo tho plaintiff «<»« travoling at 
ahout thirty or thirty-two asilfn^ 9»r hour, wo are of thV 
osriaien thnt tho ruiingo of th«» oourt wer<? not so jire» 
judiai^d a» to warrant a rev^roal, 

yurth'fr ooaplalat is that thr Tourt iM^roperly 
««Btain«d ohj^Qtione to th^ arguaont of plaintif U ooaasoi 

to the Jur^ , And trwi*: V-v^ m ,r\ nutSn iaipTfrp<^r r«Eir*rk9 
vhioh preJudlOftU tiw plaintiff* s mtm* #)til« th« ruling 
of the <38urt in th>; first i»6t»n«<>' w«c not prepftr* «« 
thn oea.'ft Imd « vrcn^ iMfir^&ni&n as to ^«htft Ui'» fti^uaa«nt 
was, /9i »• thlnjc thft »ett«r was ufif ioicntiy oorr««t«d 
wh«n it «.jp«»^<*«^ tbmt th« oo-rt onl^ iftt«t.?*in«<i thr «1ij#o-i 
tlon to the argujawnt for th« reafton that i*© uiui<»retood 
it to b" tlv^t no othT witnesses Wt the rr^otenauftn brad 
testifioU fsr tla» ^•ffl'ndftntB. Thtft, of flM&urs«, not b«» 
inn tli« 8brgwA«nt raai4?, ^y« think th"^ Jur^ was n«>t in ^n/ 
WRjf inlel«4 or prf^Judioed agaiant the plaintiff, 

7)M plaintiff fnvthfifT argu<^s tint the instrue* 
tiSBS sf th<* <tO)irt« v«r« as a «tisl«», hi^^hly pr*jadioial 
tt hla; that th« wurt a^re tii«ntjr*thrffi« instructions 
requested Iby th« 4«f«nd%nts, In nine of wKioh thfB Juiy 
««s told to find the d«f«n«iaats not gttilty and in two 
others tc find for the defendants, and thsit th« Jury 
wss si BO w*rn«u not to l«t th« faot that defend onto wore 
wrpo rations ««t*?r into th«ir dt^Xib^rsitiene, hut thai 
they »>K>ul J eoBsidsr that the plaintiff was intf^restf^d 
in tho Qiiso, ota« ^« think it ie; esu^ looro oonduciTO 
to Justl«« tlist but « f«w instraetiona W givon, for 
in ^i^at iastoao^s a gr^r t emvy ttmA onl^ to oonfu«« 
r«th<»r than to assist th<! Jury to arrlT« at th*-ir Yor- 
diot* tha RUHltmr of ln«tru3tion«, how<*v^r, cannot ho 
arbitrnrily liaitt^, ahioiaies Uni n Traotion .:o. Xt, 
Sisea, kXl ill, 255, 

Vliers SA inrtrustlon oonoluda« with a direotioa 
to find for tho d«f«jju^nt, or sons similar «xpr«;ssion, it is 
not orror to givo such inntruotioa if it (snbraoas th« theory 


•f th» d^f4m<i»ntsfoand<!ia upon th«^ «rvi4«il4Mi «nd not oovtrx^ 
#ti b^ «ija/ •ther laBtruetien* In thi« oeftA «« 40 not think 
th« in»tT\»ction« Tiol«t« t \A» rul^i, Tls« pX«intiff «lso 
eoxplAins Bp«!^elf ienlly tf> thf> fiiviitg of iai}tru<9tlontt >fes. 
13, 14. 15, 16, 17, la, 19, 8C, P.1, S3, ena S&. Th« 
««rt<»R Af lnRtru^timi» giT«»n ar« thn Bfm« as iiiee* civ^n 
•▼«ry 4fi^ in «»i£tilAr €«£»<*». it would mt^r* thie opinlom 
«ntlr«ljr too lengthgr to ^itcuHit all th« e1>4^'c^^<^)^"' RiaciR 
in ({''tail, and w« will, thereferw, eenflnr; our»elT< s^ 
to but »oa* of th<^«. W« hRV4i, h«tiw«vpr» (nomliKMl then 
•11 6ftr(9f ally and arc of th« oplaioa tlmt tht^'ro I0 not^iting 
la th«« that would ^jfrxrr&nt n r<*v<>r»«l of th« Jud|iia<»nt« 
Inetruotlon Ho, 13 t»aa wn th« jaSSSElSiSL.** ^ proof required 
to warrrmt a T«rUict for tl¥» plulatlff, anu ^«« given, 
A olnmiur incitruatitm mne u^ proved in ^hi.,qf^;o Urii inn Tr.fij ^ 
tion Curju^^n^f r^ :'4*?.» * 818 III, 9, Inetruotlon no, 14, it Is 
sftid, i« wrt'iig Voaaun* it linit«t tlMt tia*" irit.'iin which 
th» 3<iOiortBon should b# in th«!> ex^roieo of ordinary e«.r«to 
Ju«t \>9>f9T^ th<^ fiollieioR 9oiawcrf*ti^ vm think this is 
ontonablo. Tho i net t motion told thf jaiy that th« 9«y» 
matt of th«" d«f«sndnni« mmr*^ rfquirod to oxnroioo ordia* 
airjr o«re «• ^hc f3<%r approaoh^d the pl»oo of ihm «ooidi?nt» 
JSK3tx3BKXkxkkjQiaaK2aix^^xXKxx2<3dcxxxxa^^ to think 

th«» plaintiff** intAirpriftiition of thie inotruotion io 
too nsjrrosv. It is aloo oaid t>»ii thi» iaotructlon ignorod 
thu plaintiff e contention that d^'fcnd^fmte Tiolatt'ti tfaf* or* 
dinaaoe requiring st-oet OAre to otop before orooeing 
bouloT^trdo* It wao ooFteed^^t^ that thr amr in question 
waa r<^'iuired to stop b«f :r«? orooetng Mielti^aa avonuo, a«d 
w<? think th«f Jury would uad'^rnt^nd thst if this had not 
bo«?n dono tho ownrantc of the d«f«mianto %«r'- not oporatinf; 


th» 99Jt as It at|>p2i»a«h«di Xkm plae^ of th«t aoold^nt 
with •rdinsr^ omrv* X»(»tru9tlon !Iq. 16 l08trant«»d th« 
Jttry on thw Xaw of U»o Stats with r«f»r«n«fi to ihM jrato 
of opf^edt «t«, of niotor t**))!^!*^* the aosiplaJlnt is 
that it |»ttrport«^ to 1h» a oopty of »«o. 369* J Ch. ISi, 
h, s.« t^«m portlono of thRt eoctlon wero, as a iMttor 
of ffiott onitt«d. Wo think tho OBaitt^u parts ««ro not 
l»«rtlnont to ttin ismte tm^ wero, tiieroforo, projptnrljr 
•Mittod and th« jury w«r<» not in any tm^ aioXod. An 
invtruetion in aubotanoc! the Muno ao ilo. 15 wa» ap« 

provod in ■YMf^,--ii», <;n4^« T^^?,IM>f^., -A^M?ftBJS. Xi ISEI^SL. «0« 
ni. 63i5« What y*^ Itam RtatiM in r^tnwmeie* to v^. 1.4 
i« a9pXiar&bl# to tho ooNt^iaint aued^ of 3o. 17, ln» 
otruotlon 8to, 18 vmm not i«i^x^9<»r, y.r ^ j^fjj,<^jri oK« x*. Q^fatiigafO 
Jtatilwayo gpmT>any> 209 III* A»n. 172. J;n»tru«ti^n Wo. W 
told th»' jttxy that if thpy b#li«rrod fron th<» evi4«»no« that 
th«» »tr«»«t ««r A14 not run into thi» ttutoiaobilo, Imt that 
th'' autooobito ran a^Aiiinot tlm aid* of XhR etrent oajr« 
tho plaintiff <»»ui4 not r«oovoir» Th« tlxoory of plaintiff* « 
9*04 was that tlt« otx«ot oar ran a^ainat th^ o44« of th* 
avtawobilOt and thia boing true, he o&ulu not r«>ceT<ffr 
unlofso Ui<» Jttry <i# found, tt was not «rror to giwo 
inotruotion Wo. 80. flg^^ Xt. '7^^fsm9 -^^Hjf ^^l^M ^,t » ^^^' 
ill. 4$0, an.1 tho aaeio ia trua of b«. ai, ^^i^fi^m t. Qhimsi9 
AlUhSaZIL.^* iO« 111. A99, 447. Inotruotitn Ito. 3» told 
thffi^ Jvry thttt if thoy boli erred th^ solo eauoo of tha ao» 
oid(»nt waa oaoaai«>nf»d by th^ annnar in whioh the autoatoblle 
wato bain«( drlTan, tha plaintiff not reeoY^r. wo 
think this «rae not iM^iropair, nor waa it pro Judicial orror 
to glTO in«truotion fto. 2S, gi»nta ▼». S^^SMSJi^^^LJiEMSSSL 
qa,P . 2a4 111. 8411, 


dMk«Cttd MBdltitm aft«r tha ««<rl4 nt ajr» in tho rff(3or4, 
whloh DtrongXjr ineiiaat® t)ii»t tb« mit«wotlBill« roiit lat* 
th» iitr««tt ^&r till dB f «}|ilRiit« oont«rndc»^, «md elne« the 
juf^f iiigppar#ntly found ihatt this wa« %h» t$i.^%, w« <io 
net l»«liev« th^* r® is nmr trror in %im rmmr^ U» v»r» 
runt a r'f^iruaX »t th« Ja<iem«nt. tha JuiJemwat of Um 
Sup«rior aourt «f (k)oic Jotintj i^; affirm«4« 

«17 - ?AMti 
tratrix of Uh-^ K-RiHt* of ■ "^-/f^^^ -* /> m •» 



(5C«r acnmi. 

/ ) 

Ml* JUtSTI?7v ©•i3C»J«ca« «l#livor«d tli» oplnloa 
•f th# court, 

Mildred H» Sotm«ngel * aim adrainlatratrix of thf* 
S«t«t« of Uuftolpto XiOula Uohw*n|{€iI, d«^G(>^a!9eei» brou^^ht suit 
in th« Sup«rlPor Court of Jook County agfiinet rirlft Si COBOr* 
p«ny akn<i ^^^orrin fiiroo^ to Tefn^fPt dsMqR£•^i^ for ih«» d^ikth 
of i^iudoliph l^uio <i>oht*«ng«X , AlXegtfd it!" httve b9<»ti Oftunttd 
by thf> wroagful »ots» of tfee 4<pfen<3®«t». T^io ault ^«» 
ttft«r«ordo dl»ffllB(»«fJ fts to swift % ^Tompany, and the oa»« 
««nt to trial iiK«iiiot th* <i«f«n<^«nt, l!orri0 'Uronh, alono. 
At ti» alooo of th« plaintiff ftvldpno^' th^re wae ft di- 
j?«ot#4 Ttrdiot in f«vOx of th* d^ffsncJant* 

Th*» r'?eord diH9lo««e that a horoo, whioh wn» 
hltohert to ti grooory ira^son bolnngini; to the d«f «md!»,nt» 
ran avigr anu that tho dooeaoed ran out into th*; »troet 
to otop th» hor««; th»t ao h« did »o the herao aiiied 
atvay froai hin ^nd th<* »a^n swung around or aimyod nnd 
to avoid being atruok by it tho d^oeaood «t«pped back 
and wan etru«k by an autoioobii® truok b«i«»nRin« to Swift 
!> Oeaipanty, oosilng in ih« opposite dir^^etion and waa killed. 

^ Q ^ 

J?l«iatiff'8 fih«oyy is that tb* tf«e««ji««i ««• ziot guiltjr 
• f ooatributovy negll^no« for th* r«tt«oa that tlM d»» 
««as«4« at th« tir5# h« r^?««ive^ th# fatal injuri«e was 
•ndeaTorlng t« aaTt a 1m»/ d^c: wmM in tl)«; gre«»iy w«4p»n 
fro'i iierMnal iiyiury or doath* f}i<»r<» is no dleputa 
that if th«i*« »Aa «vid<»ne« te sutain tMft th^for^r* thor* 

»«uid >« xiawiity, .^OlJifi ii. rrt«^i^» a*?? ill. ass. 

But tnfi dafwnoftnt aiPKu*^^ %]m% ther*- 1» nc <rvi<lano« that 
the d#e«a««^ h»d axgr vudh int«ntlon, 

V« r«^«t to ttay tlsat thit «a»a ima ▼•17 iMsdly 
tri«d. 7h« «iirl(l«no« <io<?« oot «9loarIy dlROlefta Jttet 
vlwra 7 hov th^i Acoidvnt o«ourre4. It 4o«*e not clearly 
appaar vhttt}i«r thtt liarvft «»« noing narth or »outh in 
Atato atr«at« nor in what jrart of tb« •tra^'t tho aedl* 
4 nt took plAoe, 7ho iritn^ne^a wtit*^ not at all olooaljr 
«3UMBin«(l »o that th«i oitoatlen ooulA 1»o »a44* oloar to tH« 
Jury* but vo gathor froa tm axaminAtloa of the entire 
r9o»rd that th« horoo m&m running awgr going at a fairly 
faot tret oeuth in atato Rtr«ftt oaot of tho oaot car track; 
(althoufth oounoil for plaintiff oayo *%he wita«o«oe «av 
the horao raaning a»ay» going north o« @tat« otroc^t noar 
67th ttrcat* an<l again *th« herao vaa trnvoling north 
aaar th« aorthhound etroftt oar traaks of fitmte ntroot*}; 
that th« <S<»ocaffed wao on tho oaot aido of the otrtti^t* and 
ao ha lookod north Ho aav thf hoxiio running aaay omaing 
towardo him to th« ooutl^ that d^^ooaood th«m ran out into 
Xhv utront* rf^ie^a hie hande nnd «nd«iaTorod to oteji tha 
horoaj that %h» horoo ahled to th« woot and tha wagoa 
amiyoti ar oworrod; that 4oeaa«od thon «t«9pod haolc to 
th« oaat a stop or ttfo in front of thff auto truok oowiag 
north on th« oaat oiUo of iitate otroot. mml waa run ov«r 

;:ir;ji: 'ni-t 

mn4 kiXlcKl* tli* <»vi<i(mc« fuTihet dl»olea«s that th» ^ift|E«a 
wtu$ « oloned groonry wr^j,^oa, &;^«n «nl/ in ih«! front &n4 
rmmr* Tim wita^e*, :%tT»l«y «l%tin;v *t th» window ia hit 
homffi •p?je»it« wh«r© t,)«* ac«id«^ftt »oottrred, t*"Rtlflisa that 
h« saw th@ ^«fiMS<»a «:;nins dl>«n t,im 8tr<»?t without a tfriT«r 
ia it{ tlMfct %h«»tti «n« « nuuili liey tsibeut %«fflT« or f earthen 
jr«ar« old trying; to e«t in the lMft«k cf t)s« wii«:on ov^r tteft 
t*lX>0«rd, ami thai th«( b*/ was not in thr^ wn^on at tlio 
tin* th« a<30ld«mt happ«a«d« thtr^ waa a «tAt«m«nt af 
laaapMna Jaaka«n in tlie r««oord !«a4 it tr«Mi iMMitted timt 
if fih« tf«ir# preeant aha vould iaatify iliat aha aaw a 
horaa rimning «<(«»/ ia titata atr<»ffit» that thA hora* vraa 
ea tb« aaot erido af ^tata atra«»t aaar th« aaat walk, and 
that **th«r« waa a little %)oy on the urngpn* , imA that »h« 
a««r tha d«>afiaa«d Itava th« aida«adJe in front •f the lif«ry 
atabla nnd try^ to stop th« horee whi<3h mn» coming iaaa^rda 
thft daoaaand} that aha also aaw a truok h«loni?;:iui[ to 
Swift ^ Ofumg^mnsf oottiag frea thft south tisA going iwrth* 
Tliara vaa alao a ntHt«Be«nt af l;£air tha Ttumnaa, aAd aIm* 
«a adeUteion that if }»r»a«int 8h« aould t<»«tif3r that aha 
«aa atandlag at th<» oeuthaaat oarnar of 57th J?l««a «ad 
tttata straot «h4>n ^« a«a« a raxmrnny horaa oomiag aouth 
oa th« northbound ntraat ear traek; that aha mtvn the 
daaaaaad near th« oroaa^nmlk of 67th Plaoa andr^Tcriait 
to sralr th«» hrldla of th« ^raa; that tikft d' ooaead atappad 
badk tow«rda the oarli ahout two paoaa tc ovoid tha ira«oa 
and >iaa atrutit hy th« auto truok whieh waa colag north 
b«t«aaa th« aaat roadway and tins atraat eajp traoka. aiMl 
that "tharc; ^ma a littla hoy on tlte vaeoa". CHh#r wit* 
naaaaa testify th'fy aaw a hoy ea tha woKOAt \m% notify of 
thaw tawtifiod aa tf) ynh^n or hov thoy aaw hist on th« wagon 

•r ivh«rr« th« Vojr «&»t ^u^ if tkM>r« «a« » hny on th« w«»^on, 

hnd £»«i««ed thtft* to th* eouth try looHime; in the* rnn^r «nd 
•f tlte vagoa whioh mus opan. 

Coaeid^riiig oil tiui •videno*, ^«^ think th«r« ic 
aen<» that ten^t to shO'« iliat the £i«^«»&»Ad kn«« th« 1»ey 
«s» In tl9i» wfli^efl imd went t» «top the bars* to present 
the bey trtm being injur*4 ttr killed, tma in th«@« elir* 
ou»et&R<3e8* of dourer, the verdlcst fre» properly dir«et«d. 
The Jadi^ent of the Superior Court of Oook Oount^' ie* 

ZM • 24576 

ax7Y or Guiojiiio, 



Ajpjpid laat. 

©f CH1CUG0. 

216I,A. 626 

Ma. Ju^Tics^ etaoersoK d«iiTcr««i tiw opinion 

ftos ciftf«na,ait was ohiurg«(i in tta« £iiuRiai|Mid 
^urt of Chio«Mgo with ibw violation of m sooiion knova 
AO aoas of t]i« ItoTiood MuaicipaX Oede of Chlo»^o. A 
Jury wao waited luid thf os^uso outeitt««l to the oourt. 
T%MI d»f«»n<lant in&o found guilt/ «ad fln«<l #100,01? and 
oestB, to T0iv«TBm i^l<3h be proa«out«e thits writ of orror. 

Tho only point li# h»« im^** is that a«o, S0S9 of 
the KOTiooci ;.unloip«U. Co<i«, wtia for sl vlelfttion of whloh 
tho dofondsnt mo found guilty, hod prior to the riola* 
tlen olaiaod, b<iea rep«&lf»(i, ana therefore, tharo «iui 
nothing upon whifsh the oharge oould h« bao^d. It io 
avguod thftt a in 00 the Utmloipnl Ooart in authorised 
«nd required to take Judiol«l notio'" of all general 
ordinanoeo of th? oity, that this oourt should also 
talee suoh notloe, there is no ordinanoo in the rooord* 
and it has been repeatedly held that this oourt doee 
not taieo judloinl rwtiee of the ordinano«^o of th« Jity 
of OhioogOt 1!mt that the^v smst be inoor]^rat<^^d into thi; 
reoord. ait:/ of a^ic»^« T> nemey. la? Ill, App. 441, 

^^ vp 


git y of OMctaaff Tj^ aoran . 192 III. Apju 57; qit^ of 
gh^O>^ Xj. MSSx 195 "1. App, 399. 

fii^r* b«lne no ordiiiano«> in the r«aord, 
iba juct^ent of the Mualoijpal Court ie affirmed. 

2Sd • 24634 



tor 9t th« J5«ti*t« «f #<5©rie« ?/ 
Kysjft* d«»'3ea8ed, substituted dk 
^efisnu&nt inst«»# ef ^eerge/". ) 
l^mn, trading as '#«er(g0 ]?. jl^ j 
it Co., \ / ) 


6 T A 


Mi.. JllBTt S tAX:£<m deliverea the epiaioa ©f 

th« ^art. 

On October a&, 1907, the ^l&latiff Itrouj^jxt 
•ttit «y^a UNt «iea^ii equate for tK--^ evm si ^,rro,i^, 
flytut ©n T^y>r^mry Z, X9m, 4^f^'*mwnt filial m i?lmk ef th« 
g<ti^ral i«Btt«. 0» F«br\iary 9, 19(^a th* plaintiff ««• 
drd««red to fsuhi^it to the d«f en<l nt Its ^cks ef ao» 
{Souat, tind en Ppferaary IS, 1900, a further 9T€«r «*• 
issued ttpon \h« T)l«iatiff to produce for sxasU-natioa 
and Insp^etloa o^rtaia boojes &nd MmiBTwttdai. 

th^ r*'-'^r(5 Khc f liict nothing fi*rther vnui 
dose ia the aR«tn« until Juae 15 , 1917, STer 9ight /ttars 
&fter«&rd«, irli«n Sexlicrt Bebb vas tgiyen l«aT« t« «nt«r 
hie tkppm^Tmnen tut »ttorn«y for th# plaintiff and a oer* 
tain order etrikj^ng U)« oa»8« fron th*"- dook«i was set 
aside and vaeatttd, and ti»« os-u^e r«>d& :keted aad r«ia» 
stated sad t)i<^ d«iLth of the defeadaat •«gg«Bt4Ni, r«jid 
the j^rcreent def(»ndant substituted. 



Qn Cctober 27, 1911, %(>» defettd^^t fll#4 a 
further pXi^, 8«tiing up tlmt the •ersrttl nupp««ed eatt««« 
of «etion In tuo 4«alan\ti nt diei not aaorue «it<dri one 
7«»x Bft««r June S9, X915, i^«n letter* of «4mlalstr»» 
tioa wsfr« lei»a«d to ti»? d«f«n'iaat; that all of the ASfietfi 
(ftf tl»« fiGtate of H^«n, deeeaeed, wcr«» imrcmterlsd In tii« 
Pro1s«t« Oourt in th<» ©ae year prior t© the tlae th« d«- 
f«adaat wnm »M\m%i%utm4 as d«f«n<is,nt in ihle gaa««, &8<i 
tluftt thcTt? €tr« no assets of the mnXd @8t^t« «ut ef vliisSi 
m»y jtt4£!»«at against th# A^fenui^tit, mn a^jalais^trater, 
ean %« satisfied, 

T)w d«««ia»ed, aeergs F. JHyan, In Uia iifs 
tine, ^ught, fs^n time to txsMi, on account, c^^riain 
aare^^ndisa tn&m th« ■pl»ln%iff» Aooer^iag to a state* 
sNtat of aeeouat, which wfiS offered in e-vid^Be«, he 
traaeasted busineae with tta« plaintiff betwecm 1901 and 
1008 to the extent ef altout #13,000.00. The plaintiff, 
clalain«( that th« (lefea<iAnt was its debtor, begasi tve 
eaiia against hia, c^e of vMioh ig the <muee h^re la* 
TolYed. Co i>«^o«*b«r SI, 1910, In thestUe^r suit, Judg* 
aent w&n «at«r«d against hin in faver ef th@ plaintiff 
in the sun of #3,382«00 »nd 90sts« Th@ ccntroversy 
betivees th<? Uefen4»ail and l^e plaintiff, in th*- metant 
ease, is what aaprvrnt, if stny» ir iue the j^lateitiff on 
an alleged open aeeount. It is elaiaed hy the plain- 
tiff (and testified te by the witness Fatt««rsoa) that 
in the Fall of 1920 i^ttersen, aeting as attemi^ for 
.^an, ent<>red into n^etiationn with the plaintiff in 
onier to bring about a settlsaoent ef the whole of its 
aooouat with Hyan; thst he presented an ite^alsed etnte* 


, ^KV^^ 



s«nt of the aeoottai to riyfto and ^an «aciwij|«4 it, t^a Iqr 
ii«tt, ffad s«l<i it WM oorre«tj that njFaa teld M», .^tter* 
»eB, to CO ab0a4 aai4 A*al with rermter (of the plalatliT qo*» 
yaqjr} In aqy 7sjr ^ vl«)H»d; that aoeerdiagly, la deoiabar, 
191c, Patt«r«oR aetii^ aa attorney for ^aa, eenceatad 
that Jttdi^ant b« «at«r«4 upon e«rtaln ootf? (]^rt ©f 
l^jraa** alleg»4 in4^bte<xaaaa) in tmrer ef Uie i^lalntiff 
aa<i a^alaat ll/an, in tJa« sua of |3^^«C0 »sui costs; that, 
latar. Hjr«tn baeasA Insaaa, oad hltt irifa, Max^ AliQ«» Hyaii* 
beeasa hia oo»a«rratrix; that alille astlae as eush, nnd 
apen t)ia a4Tia@ aad dir^atien. of Fattaraaa, asa ia ooa- 
sideratioa of the relaase of U>« jad^saat of f336S«^» 
mbm traasf erred to oaa Faratar tJto six sharaa of stodfi 
ia t]&« Trula Walkor ::^., vMah hmA beloaged to Hyaa; 
ttet aubaaquaatly, througb tha i^robate (>»urt, Hyan saa 
raatorad to reasoa, aa<i, the r-p-af tcr , in that ooart ap- 
fivTOd t^ ao^'oat aa<l tia« transfer of th« atadJc; tkai 
Bf&k than statad that his total iadebta^Laess , to th« 
irlaiatiff , laoludiaK tto J«K^pMHat (vhiisii had ba«ai r*» 
laaaad) for ^3382.4:0, «as |8<^0«21, 

In Octobar or Bomaihar, 1911 • tlse fins, 
•f ahl^ fattarsen was a ao«ibar, filed a bill in oiwaaary 
oa baiialf of ?erst«>r for aa acosunting af the affairs of 
%3ses Fraia ^INilJcar Os, with a spoeial r««^f(»ranoe to the 
iliTidaada daa oa the six aluurae of sto^ via oh ^aa 
had famerly oimad. Pattarson testifiod that objeetioaa 
mer^ filaa iti tha ihrebata Court to ttte transf ar of tho 
six aharas •f tlte stock froa thi> sonaerrRtrix to Ferster; 
that thsy m4f:fm averrulad aad that, whoa ^orator applied 
to tho nraia Walher as. for a ttanafar ef th« stock, the 

latter ^wiapanjr im»0uii3«id that et»4 motions w«r^ pen^iag: 
leiiTia^ « ^;il>t «» te %hs tltl*" t« th« stoedi: «bS n& 
refused to taake th« traiiaf«r until that matter »a« 
olnared up. A9p^rmi%l^, tM'^ onl/ «»t%t» %«« ^4.,. 
«»i»8X«t«4 of th^ «i.x telmr^m &f<sle 9f th«» Fmla 
#alker 3o. Pattersea further test4fl#U for the pjlain- 
tiff tlmt th* rntk^^in for «ot eoasenting to th« «ntxy 
of Ju^pR«nt l8 the IsBtatit oase ««ie th» fast tlmt the 
answer of th« g»rnieiSfte. t^^ Fruia Wailcer CJ©.» ft» te 
the; «is@ant <iu«, mi?is conteet«4, an<i it ««« Seoi4e4 t« 
keep tJ*e suit ppitdiag ia ord«r to re«|uir« the g«.nii8h«p 
to furt^ier an»w«r ae t© the aeesaEialstian of 44Tid*md«. 
Also, ho t«stifi«4 thHt, at the Uae cr the fi«&I ao- 
douBtiag in the iToWto do jrt« K^f^i «ao pr«o«»t «Bti 
read th« stat«»«nt of acoDiiiit through jsui4 satld* *t1»t 
i« all richt, that is what X «ant". *Mg« i^ ahottd aodi 
go &ft«r those f el I ewa,*( referring to ta« Fruta ualker 
0©,) *8«t ali yew e^a out of thejau* 

Th« id don ©f lijraxi eon^her»t«d J*att*r»©a ao 
te th« aooBuat with the plaintiff. Sh« teatifiod that 
Iter httahan4 aaid he ovod iium that aoaegr esd that he 
irnnted it paid; tl«t ^h«a the ;5tat*iw**at wslh hrounrht 
to the« th«/ loek«4 it OTer and talked orer th« differ- 
ent lt«aa; that iw eaid it was Ju»t and that th^ «i£aount 
wae all right; that he oaid he ©wed the monejri that suh- 
eeqtiently, aloe, aft'-^r h«» w«9 deolared aane, he eaid he 
oved thp «on«y and siaated to pay it if he <iould» Mr»« 
Bsrtm ia har teatiflKsgr admitted that, duriag th« ti»e ehe 
««a oonaervatrix of her httohaad. ahe traisaf erred the alx 
soaree of stook, ia tiwj Fruia Sfalk*tr Co., to Monster; 
that it waa transferred to Vormtrnt to pay k Jad^^aentj 



tiiAt it imm aiider«toe4 sh« wmm to g9t vi^ataver diTidondc 
lsa.4 ai$omt»a en tiiig* six e)»ijr«« &f et«d< ^rlor t& the tloMi 
of the traaefer to j?©r»t«r. Cn the other hand tfe© t«8ti<- 
aMny of WillicwB, 833 atiern^y, @»Iled h^ thm 4^f0a*^m%, 
is to thfi •ff«et t^i^ cn Dee«sil>«>i' S3, 19X2, h« b»«l s oeo* 
▼erection with Bysn st his h©aB©; tiwit (^an stateti •that 
h« didn't owe Fe rater ^ttt^tbwey Jk 0&. anything luad that 
thia -as isas«i of ?er8tar*a saooth flns^nolfigi* that in 
that OBDnrera^tion they talked aWwit two auita* »»« u^an 
an apes a«se >j»t. The witness Willixuas «a« at that ti«« 
the attorsejr for th« Truia Valk^^r f^., aiul vaa oni^i^ad is 
taking the (i«po8ttiOR of Hywa to h« U6«a in th« at^anoary 
suit trhi<^ ha4 hftn^ heipm againat thr Fruin Welk^r Oo, 

TlMr« «as eff@r«<i ia evia<»Rd« a letter dat«4 
July 10, 1911, trrittan by F©r«t#r t© Pattersoa, and which 
is «n4ora«4 at the hottest, ^Aooepted July 1©, 1911, i*. 6« 
?att»raca, * In that i«»tt»^r F©r«t«r stataa that h« is the 
ovaer of aijt ahares of sto^ in the Fruin Walk^^ Oo. and 
entitlml to th« diTi<ioi«Sa thereon fross July 1, I9e7, suh» 
Joot to #30ei»00 4tt« to fttt&ehiag ereaitora, ^bioh suae ant ha 
iatenda t- pay froa «riitat h« r«oeiT«a »e dlTidoada on the 
aiat Bharea of ato^. The l#tt«r, further, atatei! that 0ut 
of what he reonlToa aa diTideada he aili pay Fatteraes aad 
the Byaa Katata $6»000«00; that hie estiaat* of the oar»» 
lags 4ue ca the six aharea aiaofi July 1, 1907, ia #1$, 006. 00, 
Be therein furUt^r proposed to x'&ttersoa that he aot aa hia, 
^rater*a, attoraey an<i take |»ro|»«r p7oe«e4iagas and aa 
«»H^ea6tttion he alwald r^o^lTe, out of the ^roeee4a, #6,CC0»c^« 

Ob Jfmvmry 22, 1918, the e^<uae vae tried l»efo2*e 


a Jury aad the iaeuee found for tf^ d«>f«tml»»t; aad. on 

y«toruary 9, X9ia« 4tt<ig?Hmii wa« «nt«r«« timt ti»e plain* 
tiff t«k6 aeihin^ by it« eait «md tlmt the def«T»a«iit 
reeoYer obstt. 

Beduettd to ite simplest t^xns* thf<^ eub^stttntial 
question before the 4«2^ ^»s irh«th^r /'&tt«?r8«a «ad Mjm* 
ajriia* on th« one teoi or Willifuae oa tho otlier» ohould 
be belleT«4. Gf oeurse. from t^« irerdiot It 1« %uito 
obTidtto th^t ti)^ Jury ai4 net b«Ii«vo that ajfan in hie 
llf« ti«« A4iaitt»4 t)i« iad«sbt94ae«». c3ouae«i for tlb^ 
plaintiff eiaiai«4 tiiait Hyan aifa«iti«?4 the aorr^cta^ps of 
th« aeoouat upon tvM ^ tH«r d<K%aB4 was bas«d; ti-u^i th#ro 
va.e no oTidsnoe of ::ir&u4 or mistake in t.h<e oirmi««tano#s 
uad^r whioh ho adnittea the oorrectaeee of tho ae«K>uat; 
•iKi that th<? odaisoioo b^OBiae oonoluoive 0Tid<^n<:!e of 
ills iad<*btr><^n9«s. C« the ©tijpr Jssusd, ocunsoX for %}m Oo- 
fOB^ant oloiaed tliat tho ovi donee oMooo thot t^ oal^ 
oooot of the Hymn lots^te woo tho eiz olmros of stodc 
is t'ae yruiB Walker ..5©.; tiwt Ui« tre^sfer of iimX stotidr 
Iqr tli« oonaorratrix to For«^ter vmm m oollaoiiro srrxmgo* 
»«nt; that an the r«?trult of that ArraJig«iaiont both Patter^ 
sen &na Mro. Bytm vere to roa^ire ooti^oasatlea from 
yo rotor if Ittts imo ouooeosful in Mo o^oQountinK vtith tho 
Trxtln «alkor 3o.; that Kyait ia hio »ffi4aTit to Mo pI«R 
d^aiod «ttty liability; that tlio t^sti^ony of tiillReto • 
that HyftO, sifter h<» had boon r«»55tor««d tc sanity* ao lato 
ao i:)oe«ftb«r 23, 19X2, in th^ preoonoe of botii i^attori^ii 
and hiaoolf* oaid tha^t ho dia not ovo amytHing to th.« 
plaintiff • OKS not d^'nied by i^tt*reo«, auad that* th«ro» 
foro, tho jury «ao Juotifiod in its v^rdioi* 

Ondor the oirounotAaooo, tho oeaHlet io oa4li 




tSU^ «« 4« aot i"a«l Justified in eT«rrldlag th* i^rdiet 
•f ih« ivaey» It is net & isaee wher^ tte'^rA arc t^r«9 
witn€>»«9e, alX 8««Hiini;ijr ef «<|iml c^^dlbilttjr, tise of 
tli«« t^atitylng f©r tlws i>l&istiff and one foy th« df^fesdani, 
and no eth^r eTid«>Ti9e. fli«r*' are, pr'^n^^nt, a naaBlMtr of 
eireuaBtaa9««, outside oi th« t«stl»o&t3r oJf tl»» thres vit* 
a«se««, vjai<di the Jtt*y ws» entitl©«i to oon&iii&r; eueh, for 
exajaj»l«, ae th« affiiaTit of Hy&fi te th4* ^l.«ai which he 
filed on Tehmmry 2, i9C9 an^ whi<^i «nt«*4i%tea the tdme 
vh*a it is ^aia^ lut «{|»itt«4 the lii4i»bt#4neB«« sin4 whi^ 
affidATit is ceasl stent with Will|jM*8 t««tin9igr; also* 
tlw f«et that "^Ih JNttterfif*H and th*? »id«w wf^r-- to profit 
"by t^ traa8f*r ef th« six aiRyes ©f steote and th**' eotzy 
of J^dip^ant in this oaaaa* 

After a o«r«ful aiwlyeia ©f all tlw <^Tidenee, we 
ar« ef %hc cplaioa t^t tkue 4tt4^@at iis net laanif^etljr 
ai^last thf> weight «T tke 9Vi«ten0e« 

Findiiij( no ^rror in tho r««»r4» tJbe Jaiiigsteat 
is affirmed* 

1 eoneur in the d^eislos ef this ease aa announced 
in the foregoing o^inioa* hut on th? groun^; that th re is no 
etuepetent evidence in the reeord sup /sorting the plaintiff's 
caee, aa both its witnesses were inoofflipetent as contended 
on the trial hjr the defendant. 

904 • IMM 

lAKL a. ASOLIH, m minor bjr 



BOAS CCifyAr/, «\oorp. , 


MR, JWSTICS;? tAYLOR d«liv«r«di th« opinion »f 

the (M)urt« 

fh9 pXaiatiff, a mliaoj?, by -^i-» n«x% friend, 
brought suit ft^Unvt th« dofftaaast for p«r«en«l iajurioii 
«Bd roooverod Judt^taent In th« «ie» of #73O0,O4> nnd oesto, 

Tbo a*t«ri»I fasts la tn« <me« ur« HuboiinntiAlly 
•• fellovo: Tho plttintifr At thir^ %iem of t2a(> injury, en 
yobruar/ 18, 1910, who twn y«Aro «n^ «l«>T«n monUieof Ago 
aad ««• Injurod whilo und«*rtak:lBS to eroos ttan railroad 
traoktt «f thA 4of<mdeint in th« Villngo of ifAywood, Oaok 
Oottoty, Illinolu. Tho latorooctlon wh^r-f the injury took 
plaeo vao aa<le by « north and oouth lii^hwagr known «e 17th 
«v«ttui» 4roasiniir th« traoko of th«! di!»f«ndant rollroKd. 
Tho oouth trnok wno known ao tho oaotbound mein »nd tho 
traok Just north of that, and parallel vitii it, the vootbouad 
■ain. Just north of th« l»ttttr »ero two other traeka, uoed 
for ovltehinu purpoooo. aiaking in all four traoko oroosiag 
17th aTonuo. Croeeins th« traeks fr^m north to aouth.ia 
th«i eontor <Mf 17t>i avenue, th r waa a plank roadway about 
15 feet wide, and oroasiag the traoka on ihr oaat aide of 

17tli av'tna** th«rrA w^a m pX&tQs: walk. 17th avemte !« $S 
f#«t ^id« ssn4 thv* ware* IS f««»t l)«t*e«tt th^ w«^8t Ri4« 
of the «aBt eidiswalk jjji4J Ua«" e&rt Blti« of lh« planlf road- 
w%y. Tw« ble«ke north ©f th*> rfalroad ther» war a psiMie 
seheel ■mhloh let out, di^ily, uleiout 3:30 F«M. Cii ih« dUsy 
la Qttestieii, when eehod let out in th*> aft«mocn, th« 
4»liii!tt4ff «tjn4 a aujaber of othpy ehildr&n, wh® \Xwed scrath 
of the T»i.l70<i4« 9roee«d«(i bouUi frota ttes aendol on %hn 
oast sido of lytJi ay«nu« to tne raiIroei4. *hefj the^- 6r» 
ri-f«d at tiia r^ilirontl It ^«is se«a that th^ra was « fiTisigiat 
or mtitish tmia, *ltit the et^in* at tlws woot <mrf, blocking 
th«r ^osnir^. It aovfifi 9a<^war«2£ ^lu: foc't^i'do ovei- i:^«$ 
ersssissg frca iTiir^* to t«3 i&imxl&» uTtsr thes Oi9tii4r«a «r» 
rl"r«d, Ther^ w«v# fra^ oight to %if«(lvit aiilldreti «aitin^ 
irO sroais Ifrt^ ts^i'sxc; e&^^ of tli«tt w<»rf'^ wai^iAg «t the^ «a&t 
sl(i«%'iallt 2Sft^ 3^.s»€;» eo^tteroa ^ft&ra^f^ Uie «(tre«?t* A rwito^ 
kam» lilfUso, oi' C-v i'rftinht erew, *?>».* en ih* j^roond, a sYsBtt 
ttistaaa® east of tli* or«»«al£H& ft'^ ^"^ *^ north «fid0 of tli« 
froi^ht, vmd froas tiise to tisi* im n;j*ve Big-nfti*?. to tbo ensala- 
•cr t6 Etovo Un» is^ifi *iU»«-jr I'ojward er bfteki*ftrd. Finally, 
th« fr«l^t ts?ala i»a« hrt^vvd teaoitmrd aniil th« front of the 
engine wao upon th«> oaat oido of an«t hua nearly al««red tho 
sroKeing* »i4 tl«o cwXt^hwRn on the s^itand, by eoa« oignAl, 
either ^ Mo ia»B<l« or word of a&uth, (this, now«yer» i« 
ai£i|>ttt«<^) <lireet«?d or ouggipetco t& th« fshildren to arose 
tke tS'a^akB. The* «i»*f«neant oI&jjbo that wh«t«T«r nignsX *a« 
given «»o for the onj^in®*?*". th«i-«uooe, eoan» of th« ahlioroa, 
otartea tw croee the tr«ek» juet weot of t.h« woot aiad of 
thfe owiteh online, Tho plaintif ' sad another hoy wre la 
the l«a4 ana were cicooly folicwed hy so«o othero. Ih« 
other hoy, lUi^Hua, woo sllgritly in advana^ of the plaintiff, 
anu juftt aftor they haa oroeooc in front of th« owitoh ongino 


going »««t at *j ^^<»^'»4 taf %T»atat/»f Afe to thirty ail*» sta k&ur, 
strucA: both bays. B©<s«aLJi wan feillcri j«irl *:ise pX«latlff, »«iw 

mH« north imitch %Tm<akt apoB vMoh tiMs tr^t^ht 'o»4 
V«en ewitehliig fro» a p&lnt a short diei«na« «ftat fif 17tlii 
aT«nui«, eurTii4 »«min7^t as it raa ^aaterly. Th« sonduetor 
•f tlt& freight at th# tl»« ef th« asei^e»t «as 15 oare mam% 
•f th«» freight «ngin«. tl^ eeaduoter geY«> eigmils to B^s^«, 
th« hr&k'Sfs.B.n t in order that Blaira al^lrt paas tii^i to th« 
^nginn^T, ^ho t on ftsoouat ef Xh<n earre, ^uld »at eee the 
oonduetor. At th^t tia« Blake -n&m about fear ear l«:^tl» 
•a«t of the 'sroasisg. Whtm Blake ree^iTc-d si^imls frosi %h» 
eoBductor he relayed the® to tfee «iif;in««9ir« the r«sr end «f 
^«>. 31, after It h&4 eto^pad, wi^a abaut ic-O feet w«et of t^a 
«a8t li»a aS X7th avenue. 

th« fift«<sti year ©Id isitJieaa, AjoamTt «ii« «k» MI9 
af tha ee^ol eMl<ir«n» t©»tifi«d tiist t&® plaintiff aad 
Soal EoaRaa yt^nt ««at, a littla. to th« oentar of tfe« road 
is ©roer te go aroyad the «agln«; th»t irh^n tH«0' atsirt*^ 
ftdroaa the traoka tiiay ««ra g lag a little faster t)mn a 
«alk. He further testified that about five aimiteo after ^ 
i^i tt9 to the train *the traia started to back ^ aad it 
sot to «h€re t>i9 aid^walk t»a» aad we ^d ta isialk out two 
or three feet towardo ttm eenter af tiie road te get around 
it aad *t« stood th<*r>i man %'nn train ^an tSown east of the 
road WKiTftd hie hand ana said S(^« thing, but I did sot 
aaderstttftd my%i% H« enia because I oouid not hear very di»» 
tlnotly* the Oi^iise «aa em^lng, so ^ush no lee th^n"; that 
«h«i tho eiigine baaleed tqp sAd stood a%ili he waived hits 
haada snd "I «&« hist open his i^>uth bat I did aot und^^r* 

etASd nnjrthingf I oould mst h«&r hla distineiljr, th<%n «• 
startdd wUkia^ around the front ^n4 iH» train «M»e pn^t, 
then 0truck them**. Wh«n »e:fe#d it h» lo«ked dowai east im 
mi^merm^, *l leakaxi doivn ther^ %yit yaa «»»uid net 8«« ^sgr* 
thing'*; fttriU^«7, that Xh«^ switch «ngiii<^ iaad &^«ut tma ^kT«; 
t&kt tht^re «t»r« other «ar8 an swit^ tracks to th« caist 
that pr«T$nte4 you froa se«ii^ th« irao^ that Nd. 33. <»»« 
aa« SLo t^st^annqr iEttiisat«<l that he X«N»k«d »inreral tist«fi 
tovards th^ nA9% hut 414 aet s«« train Ho* 31 eqniag. 

7^ -^iXn^^sZ f«i8t, a asl^ol t^«€h^r« testified 
that ehe was there vaitii^ fer an Aiurdrti Hgia txift.ias that 
•h« 414 m>t at>tir39 the svitdhnems th«t eh« w&e talking Ui 
the (^lldrcrR; thxt th«^ n^r^. all in s herry tc jc«t ««iress| 
that nhs did r»t astlev ^h« i^e, 31 trmia uatil ehe msem it 
fljr hy; that sho ^ard ao h«ll or tmraiag; thnt site stood 
ahGut ten f««t froa th« freight train with the ohiXdrea; 
tiuit «h« ii«v n9&« tsma standlag south of the street hut did 
tmt aotiae what he W8.« deias; that ehe ili^ not se« sioy einposl 
given hgr hira to tb« ehildren. 

The vitaese, Doret^ imtten, thirte*«i y«ar« eld, 
testified that irtte waited fiv« er ten suaatei^ with cerva 
or eight Qthere, hoya imtA girls, malting vnlle the train 
Mie svitchiag about; that th»^r« wae « ffi»a hetweea then and 
the altesttty vhieh tmm eeutl'i ef th^ read; thftt iM was ai^goal* 
ing the @ii||ia«er. Ae to vhat the tmm did ahe teetlfied; 
•fell »e were all standing ther«, I didn't «ec anything 
hapiien hefore the aan told u» to ^ aercaa*, *3« were 
jttBt 8tj%ndiag th<?r<? when the tmn teld aa to erosa* nnd 
*h« aotioaed fxt>m the eeuth to the north and tald n« te 
«e aoresa.* "Be said g© aeraea." •! dea't know wlMither 
these we^re tits eacaet «orde or net hut It wee aiallar, that 


ic «te&t hm BW»t«* further, ilmt after the ssaji told tlUM 
to cross tn^ all ' BtJ(rt«4; ttet b^ m&v the plaintiff and 
tii« other ^/ start nai ^e ai&rted h«rs«lf; that alw did 
B0t 8«« tk9 train hit the boys; thai ehe 41d net Ifef'ar the 
9mmm%og9X tmlA or bear &a^ bell; that tte b«/s ««r«» about 
tho nidills of th«> plaak rosdva/ «h«n thOjf otartea to eroee. 

?h« "sitnesr, i^e« ftoqgoatt, flfte«]3 ^ear«- old, 
t testified that Vt^ froight l»lo!3k«d the oreoeii^ about t«» 
Biaotos nad aho aa» th« plaiatif f &sd feel Be^^aanj' ttet tMgr 
were otaadlag w&itii^ for the train irhieh «as OTer the «i4«» 
tMLlk; that the mua aaid '"go on aorosa*; that th«> mat, the 
crowd of th«9, to go aerOBs; tl»t thaj ^»uld aet see the 
traia was ooniag on the 6%ivT side "on aeocyjit of the freight 
traia, that iia# ec loi^. There traa a avitehias jrard there;" 
that the plaintiff eroeaad eT9r the aiddle p&rt of the street 
aad she did not see the teja atea Xhmy »ere stru^, "it ha? <ea« 
ed so sttddaa it vaa ia^assible"; that there was no evitchaaa 
tharo atKi ttero vere no ^tes there, en cress examination 
she stat^ that ahe did not h«ar «mt the maa said but sam 
the aotioniac a»d smr th« action of hia lipa; that she did 
iM>l see the ether tfaia eoaiag; that ehe ^ald net see it 
baoauso of the engine and th« freight ears; that «he stopped 
be^nso a girl ^ll»»d to her; thet eho stopped on the tntok 
in frent of the freight o^^so; that the freight engine was 
aaKiag ao ma^ aoiso "^o^ eoaldn*t h^r anything*; *it eeaw up 
(aiming lo. 31) eo svift that /on eoijld not see it"; that the 
boys did net ran right In front of the sviteh engine and right 
into the other train; that the children were together; the tiw 
boys first by about a foot or so nnd the girls in the baek; 
ti»it she thlaka th^ plaintiff vent ri.-'^it straight across and 
aas hit tg^ the other traia; that mhe did not see the ether 

train coming. "I coild not see it." "We could not see the 

traia b«^)»e the engiatt was bc long and becauve the 

freight ears %ere eo long"; t>vit when che passed the 

freight engine it c&rae likf^ a flash; that Bhe did net 

get ah#ad \ieeause a girl of^lled to her. 

The plaintiff teetified that at the time ©f the 
r.ccideat he was in the fourth grade of scJkjoI; that on the 
day in question he snd Noel Rodman startea home from school; 
that they werp going to the iop. pond; that th«» train that 
hledked them was going ha@k and forth east and we@t; that 
he reaaaiaea there frem about five to ten lainutes; that the 
switcha^m that was l)<»tween him and the center eaid to thea, 
•go ahead aoross"; thnt at the time the cow-eateher of the 
engine was about the middle of the road; that he and Hoel 
Hodman, who was a hoy eight or nine years of age, who was 
ahead of him, then went around the cow-catcher; that he 
did not hear any warning of any Iciad; that he did not know 
that the passenger train wais coming; that "the exhaust steiHH 
froBi the freit^ht engine drowned efery sound, you can not hear 
nethii^^; that all he recolleote »ae that eoraetbing hit him; 
that he knew nothing after that. Cn cross exaraination he 
Btated that he lived near the tracks and knew the switch 
yards; that he knew that trains went \)ack and forth over the 
crossing and the switches; that he was always careful when ^ 
vent to a crossing and looked every way; thr^t at the tisie hm 
was crossing he was going between a trot :ma a walk; that he 
did not stop in the middle of the track on which the freight 
engine \ms; that before he started to cress the track he 
looked both ways and t}i«n while crossing the track he did 
not stop; that the train either mn into him or he ran into 

/•'ii in/if 


tk* train; Umfc he did oet knem which. 

the i^ltnesft, <>eorg« ^s^, f&r the <ief«naaat, 
t««tif 19<I ttutt h« WA« th« «»i^is#ex ©h th« freii^ht «r 
ewitoh tz^iia; ihitt wh«n lie stopp^^d i5i& train tlip qslMs 
•f th« ftnjjinft was itU«ut the e#ster of tiw? crosi^lng; that 
Bl«fck«, R br»k<?m^n, ?d»© w?s« afec^^it fiT# oar l«2J|;the «ast 
of 17th aTenu«, on th^ aerth side oi' tb« track, had h^mt 
gilrins him signal » ivhile h« v^s Vai^iag ap; that he Qe« 
tio«d the «hil4r«i ofl t.h# «tr«#t feat did n©t »•© iwsy ef 
then tx^ to ps^A hie traia; thnt Juisii b^fars We. 31 passed 
»tM« v«s eneapiag frcia the e«ifety ▼&!▼« of hie en^siae; 
Dwt it was t%akXf^ ao u»ueual noise; thixt ht? did not immr 
Blake fmk9 any ntsteei^ftt to thf> ehildrsa; thctt th<^r« m^e 
a ourr^ in th« traek «nd the trais e»»t of Blake; that 
BlAke h&d h«M*n getting sig^a^e ft^m ©there; that hr oo ild 
aot ee^ oa a^scoaat of the ciarv« mnd was relsgring thmi to 
hia; thnt iJlnJtee »r«e ftrarmf erring signals fre® ths T»m^jr «rsd 
to th@ hea&. (m eroes examination he stated th«itt th«re were 
ahout a dosen children colX<^Qted arouad tiif oroeelng; timt 
when hia «»agia«? stopped its froat ead wae Just OT«r th** east 
eideaaXk &t 17th arenue; that it hlooked t^e oidewalk; that 
the ehildrea vere en the Riseimik isnd in the road hath. 

• The witness T^trtle testified that he ««« the flon- 
duQter on th^ fraJ^ht traia a^ at the ti«e of the accident 
was fifteea «ar» eaet 9f the fraiisht engin*? ^ast of the 
oroseiBg; tlat\% there tras ^ surve is the train; that ho had 
a hrakew^s. BlaJce, ^iTing eig^ie to the en^in^^er; t^i&t ha 
had heen a«itohia|[, ataking up hie traia, for fiT^ or six 
minutes; that he heard the whietXe of ^o, 31 and saw the 
ahildrea running; that Slnke aas hetveen hia anu ttie engin* 
eer. Bs ee^a he did not heis^r him tell the children to go 

"■eoni i 

aemftc. Os orentt •aumliifttie« he 8U!it*<i timi. he eeuld set 
teT« h^ti^ hisi had he Oone m* 

Feray Bl«*«, for %hr^ il<»f esd ^85 1 , ieutif i«<i tJaat he 
WHS bfmJr«»tsji ea th« flrarlteH engine nt the iiae of th» «eaideni 
MKd Just prior to th^ tlae tiiftt He* 31 vent ^ he ««• «^ut 
l&O fe»t «d8t of the oroesiag em4 ha4 been th^re about five 
aiaai«8 gSvii^; elgnale, whi<^ he rm&^irm^ frca the oonducrfeor 
at the i^0»r end ef the train* to tlMS en^in^er; the^t there «ae 
ft «urre in th^ train; thet he m»w ehildren en the ^res^inn; 
that Jast ^f©re Sto. 2>1 «.rriT«4 th«^ w^r^- ^.nkins v^ and he 
»a« giTlag a back up signal; that he 414 i»t &t sny tira» tell 
the ehildrea to «r©e» or give th«a aa^ iaetruGtioa of that 
kind; thst teis diti not apeak to the ehildren; that h« gave im» 
Bi^eiale to the children. When aakeel if h<» knew that Ifo, 31 
«a« «»iiii^ J» anawered; •! did not know rer sure.* J^irther, 
that he aaa i*a hunoh of hoye staadiag; in the oroaoiag'*; that 
Iw haa no reool'i.e<3tion of t}ie two; thi^t. Uwas no jpari of hia 
duty ft» e »9itohnan to sigaal people to orosa evor the cross* 
ias; th»t he aercr did. Cn oroaa exaaiiiation. hovoTer, he 
stated th^t there vaa no flapwin at the oroeaiag; that it ««• 
the iittty of the traimum to sat that a awitoh train doea net 
l»lo<^ a araaaiag too Iwas «her« there ie no flafpaan; that 
eottotiMcrg he did teXl people to eroaa; tmt the freight train 
at th« titto had ahout 12 or 15 eara; th?U hf» knew Bo« 31 ana 
ooEiix^ aloi^ aoE&e tlae hut he 4i4 not hear it oeaUng uatiX it 
flashed ^ hia; that hs kae« at th-s tiae Bo, 31 «ma di*e; that 
he did not see train ':\o» 31 until It «f4i? stopped. 

Sravea, engineer of Ho. 31, testified that h« 
nhietlad about dc roda before rmiehiag tha erosaiag sssA Urn 
hell rang aut^aMtiofilly; that tha train a truck two b«jrs; 

:i ^- -* ?■• 

T T' ?T i 


that th# erosring whb l>lo<5k«d; t>«t the ^y» awmt }»v« c«in« 
around the sncit^ engin* in frcat ef tlw trala; that So. 31 
WK8 going 25 nili!^» nn hcvur; that he cold nit the iBqu««t 30 

Bfm»«n, '^ho, «tt th<^ tiae was sittljig in Ms ttxprtmm 
wfl^^ea 8«iu> th« oroesiag* t«!^tifi«4 that he tmd te stej^ ob 
aeeetmt »f t}u» eroe»inii beli^ Mooked; thftt h« ime M9elc«d 
^relB«bly flT«» aiautea; ttmt, wh(f» He. 31 i^«B««d. th« imit^ 
e]%ia« «a« ^turtl^ on th« esroesiiaiis tJMit he ««« driving jiorth 
ca 27th aveaiie stna stopped en thi? «9uth side betw««s ti» 
iton»»i tjraakii «id tJi&»« ©1 th«* t^fen^jtnt; th»t h« was ^al^r 
fifteea »r twenty X"e«t fr©:a th^ d4»f ^ncfemt'a traefee; that Imi 
•*^ '^9. 31 eamltis mid ttmn lai^#d snd^r tht fz>ei#^ht o^^s aod 
Mnr t«e ^ys goleig we^t; tlii»t h& ti^Qs^t they »i»r« ipi^ 
t»T9usA the ei^iae te £«t ft«r«Be; %imt he s^.« th«i^ a little 
««et ef th« ®»giae; %imt t e e«it^ enjgiae vae tsoTing e&st; 
that wh©o th« hmya w«re ati^uiiic thsj isfer*^ ««s t of If th «ti»»n» 
«ihoat ZO feet er iitofe; that in? did sot h«%r Me. 31 whistle, 
\m% h» mam It ettsiags %h&t as i*& esw th# hoys feet u»4«r the 
ears th«y vesre trettisg. On eroiiS examinatioB* he stated 
that he slight have he en m%&Mitm tlftsre f^»r aere than %mm 
miautee; timt tw a««at that the boya circ»ae<i 3© feet w««t 
ef the plsako o« the oresKing; that there w«r« two oti^jp 
b«ys that aro««eii o»«r b^for* th« plaintiff mA4 ¥»Asmsi» 

there ws« effered is «rri4«a«« an ©r6iB?m<if> el the 


tillage ef iV4»ywaed which provided that, •It ahali/l*# lawful 
for any railwajf 9C«i|>«ny » * * t© nsa any * ♦ * train * * ♦ 
withia the c©r|>&rat« liaita * » » at a greater rat« ef sp^mi 
tb»a twanty aili?r« ^i hour.^ Aie«, attewtlea wmm eall^d ta 
See. 37, Chap. 114, Hev. Stat. 19G8, Surd 1677, i^Ueh pre* 


run *my train » * * i»t a gre te; rat^ ef «p««fi In and 

tl!ureiif:h » » « an^ oitjr* tevn or ▼ille|(« than is permit t9d 

hf AiV ordiimnee of eueh tsity* ie^m or villaige. eu^h corporft- 

luiT* tee»fH dojw j»y tjws is«gi%erta«' o/ ealJ 3oysi.'irati.i»a*, «t«, 

f)»# historj- of the i^l&XmtifT^u iajttri«fi ik. ais 
felievci h ooja^^uitd, eoBminut€dfpaottur«st of the rl^M, tMgli* 
)>oth Vones p<f^ietratlag th«» jskia b4f»hia4 tH« ihlfJu di&lo^^ 
if 99 4nd W«.1.6lots of the rl4i;:ht icB««; a ^iiaie4p on tb*^ l>tft 
^ttodfe; right eid*? eevoxelj ibruie^tii; ri.-ht oellejr h&ne 
dittloQste^ frosi breftfft bone; i$ever« eontusiose of a^st 
trail; n oealp votifid an4 Gsemre eontuoien ef the lel'i ki4- 
nc^^. fhe leg ^seu&e isilteted aaa m^» <ire«e«a 4«Jily lor 
a ^ear, and <iteehR)nge4 for is^boui tjstit lengti^ of tiiae. thm 
plat at iff '.cr-s in b«* for about 8 acntx**. Hit, leg i^t-B in 
an ejtbtalfttory i^pliat for about h >e»r, thr ^pllat ea&hllag 
hiffi to vtnXk oroimd 9it)»»ttt ttslng tbs bon<s^» ef ihxt l«ig. Vfi 
otiimtlate beiasr union tJift leg vtm «x«roi««a seU EStt«!£«gr^« 
Aft«r alfout a yiraj* tlfte ax^iitlzstory oplini ««» remoTi»<i «n4 a 
free tspli&t ep^li^i, Abcut e. y«s*x rI t«r t^ injury, «»rkdi 
4ttRt Rf ti?r the «aRb«l&tory e|»).4R% *«» t^Jceii off, th« p3L&la- 
tiff wederteefe to T^lk oa <KPiftcJM?» tis«i ^hJX« beifig t»Ptruot«<l 
by iilr, father l!sc^ to tiee th^sn In goin^: isp «?tfe4.r6> v.h*n aftorly 
.It tbr t&p, fe« jsfed** r. jM.«»t«p %«<i f«.ll, ffiLintlac^ imU br«alG* 
ir^g iits. lo^, .tii til* tsaeie £>lRa« a« "b^fftr*. 

'nien th«! embalatory splint «aia taicsn off tmA tint 
plaintiff aB(i«rtaok: to voUe on cratches, aa a reault af the 
6o«tor»a advloa, nn^ aft or th« lag «aa breJcaa tlie eec^nd 

tlB«» U»$ doster 9ttt hl» under an nnaes thetic» etralghtcftcd 
tJb« 1^ aax4 mmw.^tt^d the aatml&tory spllat. It «ra« icept oa 
aatil witMa three or four manihs ef th<^ ti»« of the tri^. 
At UiblI tlae x^» «Tld«mee ehe«» t^ ^aes »t th« peiat of 
fTA&%ur9 at an aa^X« of lo 4«gr«««» an^ t2ist tkere existed 
a Iftrge e^^se ef fibrous tl«eu« siid about two inches of 
thi ^enlnis* ^^ ^^^ ^^ opinion »f ^, aeb«rtc« l^iis p>7eio> 
iaa at th« time of the trial, t>ml the e^sifigittioa 'tmm not 
jTOt oea^loto; also, that th^ hoa« vould hafid fttrtiwr if 
ho 4itf net «t«« a eratoh, f^nd that th« pre^^r prodosure 
»ov voiiXd ho as o:[^a op«rati»n: to op«n de«m to tbm boao* 
ehieel aimy c»llou» and old fihroua tieeuo and put ia slid* 
ing heao graft. Tartter, it w&a hia opiai@n that the 
atrei^^ of tho leg is noie «ihcytt eae ^ttnrt^r of timt ^ioli 
i« aatural and aorsiaX. fho flaxatiff testified that ho 
oew uoo« tvo orutdhea aad t»n aot got along vith ono vith* 
ottt aoffering. 

Tim ouaso «a» triod hefor« a Joxy aad a vordiet 
ia th<» mm of $78&€«00 was roeoverod* Jv^gsumt inaa oaterod 
th«rooa« aad thia aiipoiG. takes. 

lot aa vm^ aaro is required of a hey of olertm 
as of a mm-n. of nature ^eara. A adLiK>r is ohar^^ vith the 
exarciao of mi<^ $aro aBJMtyftyttx-HiT» %&» reaaoaahljr oeaaidsrod* 
he should uso. h&ving ia alad \»oth his ago mnu his ^lent^ 
aad plqruioal oapaoit/, aad th« sirmiaet&secs of th« «ao«« 
goiaiusa 2,. Klaaaro . i9C Ul. lUSj G.a^I . & P. B. Oe, t^^ 
linlmsgr , 114 ill. 79i C. g. By, Go. ▼. Wilcox. 133 ill. 38g. 

vnwm tho plaiatiff aad the ether ehildros startod 
to oreaa* aftor th« freight traia had haohod to the oaot aide 


•f Xlm «roaalnis» th«>y ooaid not 0«« )fo. 31 apt>rea«Mng. 
Tht fralicbt train «* vhloh eonsiatod «f la to 15 «ar« and 
•aiit4iiid«<l •o«tin>rtf from th« «ro««ittS« laade that praatloalljr 
ias9et»ltol«* An-u f wether, out beyond th« vast ond of th« 
fr«ifi;ht train th«r«« vac an«th«r atriniE of fraighi oura 
atauitinc off a tIow of no. 31, ofen vhmn it waa ^uito a 
laiig 4i8tano«i ««at of tbo ereaainft. Tha oirldenoo alao 
ahova that th« «n^int of the fraight train vmn laaklnft ao 
miah aoiao that it »aa liichly improbable tliat any of tht 
«hil4r<m oould htrnf Vo* 31 omaiae. 7h<*r« «aa another 
oirounataLnoe of iitportanoo, and that van, that tha at ton* 
tioB of tli« plaintiff vaa aatmralljr diraotod ta tlw aotioa 
of tho avitoU onfiino. 

It ahould bo noted* alao, that the athor boy, 
JltdHMi* who tfaa witb tho plaintiff, did not atop and look 
and liatan whilo batwoen th^ traoka, Juat aa tho plaintiff 
did nat, and that the osnduot of both beya, t^nd that «f 
tho othor ohiXdron who ««^r« oroaoing, «aa op par«n tly , 
aiaiilar. Ih« court aaid in g,R,l.» g, Ry . t» r.inif|aro . 91 
111. ASf9» 9Cil{ *?h« faet that hia ooMp«ai<»n nade tho 
•«to att^npt uii'i«r lik* oiroumatanoaa indiontea that tha 
uiidortakiag «aa not ao apparontly pariloua aa to raaka it 
oaa vhicdi ao r<i^<aaoitablo aaa would ontor upun." In B<^aohor 
▼. I». i. R. ». gy .. 3S AP£>. BiT. M.Y, 8»8, th*? «eurt a«id: 
*Zf a ntmbor of ^<»r8ona peaaoaaod of tha anno infonuition 
vhii^ tho d«eoaaod had of tho atarrotmdiasa* aot^d in a 
ataaaar aimilar to tho way ia whioh ho did, undor tho aaHio 
•irotaaatanaoa, it w fluid oook to authoriao an inf^'it^noo of 
tho oxoroiao of prud«nao wnd oiuro oora.^naurata with tha 
auppoaod our70u{i4inga upon whioh tho d^ooaaod had the right 
to roly, * 

Qenniimringi ih<» altuntion of faot &a it exiet«4t 
nooerdin^s to tb« erid^^oe, Jufft prior te arnd at thr tim« 
•f th« Injury, «• are a&aip«lX<»4 to oonolud* t\m.r it mia 
«n« fraught with great danger* Tim ehlXdren hnd 1»»«a 
waiting 9aBU> tine for thA fr«lKht tltiln to grt out of tholr 
wajr; natural Ij tha/ w^r* thinking of th* freight train and ito 
BiOTOBonte and not. of ooa« other train that aighl oono along, 
uneoftn and unheard, on th« oth«rr traok. th^y wore lnt(^r<»«tod 
In oo«ing th« frolght haok awajr oo that th«^ oould go on 
thoir wuy; and, with their alado oo oeouplod, when tho 
freight did baok partly away and alowod up and motiono 
woro nado by Biako, which nay imr9 had tho aj^poaraaoo of 
laotruotlon to go en, it oonnot ho Bal<i» wltttin the bounds 
of ruaooa and eoeanon ooaoo, at leaot, that, when they haA 
paoood oTor tht first traok in front of the fr«l^;ht orntino, 
th<^ W9r« thift guilty of nogll^onee if th«y did not poor 
around and lo<^ to Xhn oast and inv^otigato in ordor te ooo 
if a train thoy kn«« nothing ahout, ftttd which they fSQ\xl4 
aoithor ooo nor hoar, wao ooaing frea tho <MUit. Aooordiag* 
iy wo aro of tho opinion that tho Jury w»« Juotified in find- 
lag that the plaintiff wao net guilty of oontributery negli* 
goaoo in undertaking to oroee ae he did, tmti, in failing, 
eapreo«iy, to look for, and dioooTor Eo. 3i, before he 
started to orosa; and further, that thi^ w««ro justified 
in finding the defendant guilty of nogli^onoo, 

Xt is r^ry ooricuoly oontended loy the def«n4aat 
that, Inaanuoh ae th« e^ddonoe eltows that, about one /oar 
after the plaxntiff roeeiTod his first injuries, he fell 
down thit front stairway and ro«brok« hie right log, ovidt^noo 
was iaateieeible as to th** injurious effects of that fall. 


on th« ({round that thera> w»s a ii«« tmd lmli«p«n6#nt qmubo 

iat«rT«ning b«tw«»<fn ihn orlgiaal injury >m«L th«* •«oon4 

injury. r{o«<fT«r, inAsamoJa a» tbw «m)iulatory splint wis 

tftktn off about ih« end of th« first yft«r, pursuant 1« 

th« ft4irio« of his phy9i&i»n, ana a» ho unaorteok to walk 

on oruteh«*i», al»o pursuant to tho advio^^ of hX*i phymiaiunt 

aa<i «« a rooult of that, toigoihor with either voaknoao or 

otunbiinsa ls>* fell down otnire and hio log mia ag»in 

brokon in tkM? »une alaoo ao boforo, vm aro of tho opinion 

that itamnot b« aaid tlnat this ori«i;ima. injury wao not 

tho proxiamte oauoo of what took plaoo in tho log aftor 

falllHit down oialro and having it brokon a oooorMl tin** 

Xt wao nVviouoly a quootion for thft jury. Z>ovlin y. 

Shioago City Railway Ck>, , 810 III, App. 7; V»an gloof Tj^ 

S4^ „^^ -^^hio^S<^, U4 au Aj»p. 488 J iiei^4L.^J. X?M.„..P.C 

¥iXlcton . 77 i*io, 623j a&aoth x«. Jfrooton Mill >.^ > , 49 Waeh. 

daaj yi3lgo , qi Xfc OMoni.:o Hfei^hto Tora* Xrmitt* i3o » , 212 111 • APJ).271, 

Qoumol for the defendant eutJco eertain objsotiona 
oonoemiag iaotruotiona whi eh w«ro given and inatruotiono 
which woro rofu^od, SioTon inetrttotlonn w«9r«i glTon on tho 
yart of tho plaintiff and f if toon wore given on the- part 
of the def<tnki«at. r^ftrtainly all tho law reaoonably applieablo 
to tho faete in this oaao and oortainly Al XimX waa noooooary 
for tho inetruetioa of Hit Jury wan aontaia<"d in tho instruo* 
tioae that wf^ro aotually giTon« Mero would haT» b«ea likely 
to loa4i to Qonfuoion. ^o iiaro earofully «Kaiain<^d all tho 
ohj<*otionc !m4 nrm of the opinion that thoy aro ttatonablo, 

Xi io further oonoludod that th«« daaageo ajro 
oxoeoisivo. -;#eaaid«ring what tho plaintiff haa ouft^rt^rd and 


th« 8««mingXjr ln»vi table r#aucrtion of hie oupaeity owing 
dir<°^etXy to %)it iitjuirjr and th« fftot thiit tho rtoerU do^ft aat 
41eaIo«o %lm% %im trial wns unfair or Utiat th« Jux7 was 
aoired Vy projudioo or oth^r iaproper SROtlToSt th« rt^niiQX 
wwt »t/md. gjiyiiy „4 groTlBO i.t. ijy. '^fc^ T^. jjoxA. 96 UU 
App« 5X0« 

rinding no orror in th« reoerd ihf^ judgment is 

31^ • 24664 

7RAK& 0. QUAM, Administrator 
of the Hetate ot J-^NHIs? 

A oerporat^jLon, 


) Jb^i»^.AL Kiel 


MR. JUaTlCT? TAYLCR d«liv«r«d th«» opinion of 

the oourt. 

Tlile is Ml action en th«^ oaso brought by t}i« 
plaintiff as administrator of the oetato of J'onnio (J, Uhrua* 
deeoaood, a Ju(t£[;airat for |X&OO,O0 wao r«9over«d« bsxA the 
dofftndant hao proaoeat«d this appaal. Th« eYictenoo Bhowo 
that on Auffuot 13* 1915, between 2i00 and StOO ?•!!•, J«nni« 
0. tJhrue (h^preinafter oaXlod tb« doooaotd) was valicing 
woot OB the south side of liuron otreot, towardo Cioero 
avenue, the neareet north and eouth street; th^it ae ih*^ 
aeared the southeast oorner of that interaectinn ehe 
turned and went in a general northwesterly direction^ 
goiniC over the parlrmur and th<» sidewalk to the ourh; 
that aieere avenue outeldt the street oar tracks was 
9««ed with hriok and it hsd been raining slightly; that 
at or nnar the curb she etunbled end fell out into 
Cloero avenue; that a Willys Utility, ttiirtyfive horse 
power, truole eontaining n load of 12 cO to ISOC pounde* 
driven by » oh»uffeur of the defendant, going at a speed 


of 10 t» SiO siles fta Jxaur (the r«te is la diaputo) , Al:^>at 
at th« instant at which eh« fell, struck and ran orer h«r 
eauslni; her dea^h. 

Tbd iapcrtant queetioas of faet are, the rai€> of 
•p«ed at vhiQh the truck tiraa going, and %h^ distano« it vaa 
froa th<A dec«B89d at the tiios she fell. One Belanger, wlto 
«aa about 180 to SwO feet south of Huron on Cieero at the 
northeast com'sr of Erie ftreet, 35 t© 46 feet north of 
:Srie street* saia th«; taruck was going from 18 to 2G milee 
an hour. A bojr* Aston, who »ae between nine and tmi yeara 
old, at the ti®*» of the trial, and only "between six and 
seTea vhen the oellision took plaoe, said that he vas vi^ 
a tree about 15G feet frora Cieere aTonue at th*> tiae; that 
it started to raia; that d«>cea»ed started to run; that trhen 
she fell he got down aad ran to where she was. He does not 
mention the spe^d at whioh the truek was going. Anna Adas^, 
whfO was working in a oigar store, looatec one lot in width 
frwB Xrie street, stated that the %Tuck was going about 15 
ailes an l»?ur. the witness, Jennie Aittoa, stated timt ehe 
was walking a few y^srds behind the deceased when the latter 
was near Jieere avenue; that tkic deceased was walking ^t a 
moderate S|»eed and fell wh<m the witness wae a few feet 
frea Cloere avenue; ths^t at th^ tiae the de$(m8«d fell the 
truck was about 50 feet south of her; that the truck did 
aet flwerre but went stx^ght on the eaiat side of Ci«ertt 
awenue going north; that deceased was witmn a fcot of the 
Mirb line of Oioere avenue when she was etruok; that she 
heard no bf»ll aor horn; that at the time it had Just begun 
to rain. 

Robert McCants, a porter who waa washing windows 


oi'iii :-D-\-fJ 


i^ hiSitXitit^.i 


in a bulldinif just north of ^:rte Btr«#t, stated that the 
truck vttA g9ia£ about 10 to IX nil^ft im hour; that it loe]c«4 
as thoa(;h d«^4«a»0«l atiusi^l^ru ano fell; tn.%t t>i«»x« wise n «t)8a|i 
of a tel*i£ra;^h pole ana n etone or briak at th& oomer, sad 
it looked aa if aha atisablad mnd fell oTer tscme object; that 
the truolt wae runnins between the etre«t oar iraedca aad the 
curb; tlmt it looked aa If ahe atarted to r-aa; that he waa 
nearly n bloek away froa the ao€laf;nt; thst he did not ki»w 
whether it waa a waauin or a ehild at thf* time Ttm a«« her 
fall; that ak« fall fr^i the aidewalk, 

Carlton F. Jaeobeoa, who was standing aear Srie 
street, f«t»tad that h«> saw the truek go by smci a few aeconda 
later heard a aoraaai anU looked aorth and saw deceased under* 
aaath the truck; that the truok was going 9 or IQ, or it 
Bight tmre ba^n IS feiles an hoiir when it passed him; that 
he did no I knew whether it speeded up after it paaaed hia. 
tim driver, J^aes^ MoBrida, stated that he w«a going froa 
10 to 13 ailne iia hour; that he had gott<m nerjjr l^ren street 
when the deeeasad, about eight feet in front of hia, suddea- 
ly dashed oat and stuabled in front of hia; that he swung 
the wheel arouml with both h;mds, put out the elutoh and 
put on the brake; that the right wheels passed orer her; 
that when he first saw her he theiight she was going to 
stop; that aJie heaitated, then started to run, then tripped 
as scmething and fell right in front of hia; that h«> did 
not hawe time to blow hia ty&m or put on th«» oaergencor 
brake; that he stopped when about eight f«>et after ti*e 
truck paaaed oTor the l«dy; that it was his ju^iaent he 
could not have stopped the oar, with the essiergencQr brake, 
in ei^ht feet whesn going ten aXlee an hour; that it wouj d 
take 15 or 10 feet. 


Aa experienced driver, Oannot, gave it ma his 
opinion that »uoh a truak l9«d«nl, as Xhf> ont^ in queEti^t 
«ft8, oould be 8toi?ped trh^rj gOiOg 8 ^ XO ail^^e an bour 
in sev^n imd a lialf to eight f^-et; when going IC to 13 Biles 
an hoar, in nfeout 9 fe<»t, and ^h*m geing 13 to 3C BJil<»« mn 
hour ia 25 feet. 

Af%9T a <»ireful aRaly«>is of the evidrmce, we 

are of the 9,^xmlon that it -«o <ic> be uar disenable for as 

to <K>Be3Lvu$« that th^ jury rr&B not iuetified in finding 

that the deeeaeeci vaa net guiltjr @1 aontributory ni^li* 

genee. fhe ^lueetion then reaalaa, wss the driver of the 

trud£ guilty of negligence; and a« t© th»y quf^etion 

arises, did the evid^^nse suf fici#atljr show that he was 

going at too great a speed, uad«r tivJ ^r<3uiB6t&noes, &t^ 

did he do all t^t oould reasonably b« expected to avoid 

th@ aollieion; or* in ether words, does the evidence on 

those two subjp-cts saffieieatly support th^^ verdict of 

the Jury, 

Trosa th« evidenee, it appears that the Jury was 
Justified in concluding either thst thm driver could luive 
stopped in tl»s, or that hs was driving at a speed that 
was evidence of negligetice. If, after seeing her de^m In 
the street, in the direction he was driving, he failed t» 
exercise ordinary care to avoid iajurii^ her, he %as guilty 
of negligence, thera was siiffioient evidence, if believed 
by the Jury, thnt when she fell into the street, the driver 
•f the truck was fifty feet away frois her; also, and it is 
that of thf> driver, that he ooald have stepped the truek 
in 16 to 16 feet. There is evidence, ev«3», that the truck, 
if going 10 to 12 Miles an hour, could i^ve been stoppad ia 
9 feet, ^he expert witness stated that such a truck, loaded 



ft* It was, if going 3 to IC Bill^e an hotur. oeuld be utepped 
iB e«v«a &md s ttnlf te cigM fe«i, fhe f^vld^nc^" presented 
%» th@ Jtt27 • |»Ajrti oulariljr thst of jArmie Astoa* who was 
^raetleoll^ rii;ht c^t trH> pleiec sm4 «ho vse but a f«ir feet 
behind tli!« dee^keftd rit th^' tia« ef Urie Injury, and who s»id 
that, at th^ tlcte tho dee«a8«d f«Xl, the truck was about 
50 fa«t «outl> of l»r • woul4 fully Justify the jury in con- 
elttdiniS eith«r ih&% tiie trucjc na« going at an unr^mtsonable 
8^«d an4 that thi« driver aven aft^r netielng or seeing the 
danger, oould not stop in tirae; ©r thnt, after Jcnowtng the 
danger, he failed to do hie duty. 

TJMi vita^ae 8 Belanger, MeCante and JaoobBen «<ir« 
too far avay to tke south to k ew ai) well as Jemtie Aston* 
th« speed of the truck at the tisse it struck the deoeseed. 
Tile 4xirpr soundeci no bora nn^ i^rtf no warning. That, he 
eacplaiaati, by eaying he aid not hifve tiese. Also, hp did 
not put en the mnnre^ncy brake, and he »ays, for i,^s sane 

Taking th^ eYid^nc^ all in all, *<» do not feel 
Justified in OTerruling the verdiot ef th«; Jury. Counsel 
have Tery ably |>r««eated th« cause of the defenduat; still, 
as we do sot feel that it would be reasonable te infer that 
the eTidenoe shovm that thf? deoeaeed when she fell out oa 
the street was no^li^reat, and as we are net satisfied that 
the Jury erred in conoludiai; that the driver wse a<i;ligeat» 
we noist refrain froa r^^verslng the Jud^gsent. 

The objections suide te the deelaration aire ant^s« 
able. We ar«» ef the oi»iniott that, after Judgment, the first 
count was good, 3i ty /iailway loaigaiay v. J e n ni n ^s , 157 ill. 
274; Citj- of !hi3age v. Sels Schwab ^ ;^. , 2r2 ill. 545; 


Glhicij^a. Burlington I: .^iaqy ?id. Oo, Vj^^ Ifartgoed . 9C 111, 
425. Also, the objection, isaiie to th«» instruction nusil»«r 
two is uiit«na'bl<R. Ho r ton t, yalgk c, 159 111, AOZ; Sgrlgg- 
ti9il4 qori. lUniqg >. v. Grogsui , 67 111, App. 487, 

7indlB^ »o error in the reoord tiM) Juel||^«nt is 

394 - 24747 

•f the Sstate of 'fsth^r Mxen, 
9« ?^^s«4« 




I.6I.A. 626 

/ ) 

) Ai'FJSAL VhiM 

laaiaiPAL Qmwt 
ey SHiCAao. 

ia« JUS7XCK tAYi<C^ 4«liT«r*4 the opinion ef 

the ttoart* 

The plaintiff as Acbninlgtrator of the Wstate 
of ISsthar mxon hrou^nt @ult against the 4«?f«ndaat, 
Sa»ter Liljr d&ub, to recover certain sick, nurse nnd 
funeral benefits. The statement sf eiaia allegee that 
Esther tiixoa w9M a -nffvith'-T of th? d'^fendaAt club and, 
during her life tifse, bad pnxd in aJ 1 required dues 
and assessments; that i^n or about October 31, 19170 
she be««as sick and disabled and r^^ain'^d bc until 
the day «f her death, February 11, 1918; that during 
said period of illness she ret|uirec3 constant nursing 
and atter)iti«>a; that as a result of her illness and 
death the said defeBuiuit is indebted to the plain* 
tiff for the u»« and benefit of the heirs at law «f 
the said deceased as fellove: ?or veekly sick bene* 
fits, 14 4/7 vaeks at #5.00 per week, $72,aS; 45 
day^" nurse fees at |1*10 per day* 1^9*50; burial 
benefit $7&.0C; total I197.35. THe case «as tried 
in the m»all claims court where no affidaTlt of 
merits is required of the defendmit. 


(sridrnati is aulas ts»nti»lly &8 follow: 
K«ther lUxon 'bn^Bgne i\ m&kher ©f the 4ofeiitlant org4in-> 
Isfttioa oa A^ril 19, 1917. and in August, 1917, or 
s«H« tin* prior thereto wss attaoked vith tttb^reiilosls, 
of vhioit disease {«h»? subssqu^ntly dlt^d. th« by«la«« 
of ths organisation provide that *Ia oare of eioknese 
a aaaber sliaXX notify the ^innneial i.>«er«tarjr at cad* 
with a <ioetor*s oertifi(»ite wjaeaavcr a ember !«» side*; 
that *jio aejsber of thle elub sl^dl reeeive benefits 
for any disaase oontraoted before beeoning a menber 
of the l^aster I<ily "lub**; that *If a ci«Kber baeoa^i 
sick before the ex;>iration of six aoathe, she shall 
not receive aay b«npfit» for timt ocntinued illness.* 

I^irth«»r, Artialf? 4, prevideB as follo-ws: 
*The fee to Join this Olub shall be an6 ia oae dollar 
(ll.OO), dtt©3 thirty (30) oents per mmth; taxes fifty 
(5C) cents per year; death assessments, fifty (5C) 
e<mte per member. Sick benefits shall be four (#4.£^0} 
per week far twenty*four (24) ««eks and tua (#2.00) 
per veek thereafter as long as disabled. JNfo peraoa 
shall receive si ok benefits until she haa been a 
ttSBber six months. Jouat s^kII be^in vith iVte night 
of initiation, ^'he prt^siueni ana eltainuuEi of th«> ei€^ 
eosniittee steall be notified at osee, stating the nature 
of the oase, a doctor's et^rtifisate must be sent to the 
elub each week while th*^ laeiaber is on the sick list. 
Mo benefits for oonf iaeaenta. Funeral benefits shall 
be and are $7S«C0.« 

That Hsther Hixon beosBRO a reoognlsed ne«b«r 
of the de^fendaat slub on April 19, 1917, is shows la 
the testimony of timm. Saith, who, at the time of the 


triaX, wa« pTnsi^*m% ©f th« 3lub. She furthf?r testified 
that Emthur Ifixoa r(!main«4 a »Qs)»«r of tiie olub tmtil 
sh« 4ic4, 

The witoes^ £<ulu iratsen testified t)mt Bhf? 
first ob»erT«d Bsther Siacou being ill, ia S«pti«aber, 1917; 
tJbat ch« died in the Js«:ik (^uatjr Hoapltal in th«' tubereu* 
laaia «nr4; that she did not know «h«!th(»r or aoi she had 
tab«reulesi8 wh«n aha Joised the slub, Th« vitn^es Louisa 
Haakias tsetifiad that sh« told tha laus'baiid of the 4a««tsad 
that his wife ecntractad tha disease either bf>for<^ tTne ba-> 
ea«a a aasalier of the elulb or vit^vin bxx saoatlui after and 
that the eluh trouXd sot pay a^ sii^ dues because the ^* 
laws provided that no thing would he paid en account of 
any dlaaaaa cKsntracted either before becQalng a Bsmber 
or during %h^ first six aonths after hecoaing a laeraher. 
There is i«o aaaterial eridenee goii^ to s^ew that ;^sther 
Nizoa actually /md tuberculosis at the tlae she Joined 
the defeitdant eluli. 

The court found the issues for tiae plaintiff* 
and assessed the plaiatiff*s Oioaages ia the swa of |7S.0C« 

It i» contended hy the defendaat that cert&ia 
eTid^^ajM was improperly rejected, and that thf> Judgment 
is TBanlf <?8tly agaimit the wei^nt of th? evideaae. Appar* 
ently th@ Judi^ent aas based upon that part of Artiele 4 
Shi oh proTldes that; * Funeral benefits shall he and are 
|75.0C,* So allosnnce itas B»de for side benefits or 
aursss fees. We are of the opiaion that the Jadipsent 
Kist stand. 

The> ot>nstltution of th«? defendant club consists 
of ten artielee and the by«lavB of 13 eeoticas. They are 



T«ry inartistically drawn. In reading thessi oT«r, how«T«3P, 
and giving them a c lamon 8«ase interpretation eur cenalii- 
•ion is that th« worda, •j?uneral Uenefita ehall be »nd 
ara #7S«€0*, ooastitutin^, tlaa last i etntenae in Artisle 4 
of th^^ «3on8tittttion» bind th« d<?fendaat, on the* daath of 
any mestber in good standing, to pa^ $79. OG. V« oannot 
agrea vrith o^unaal for th«? defendant that if the deoaaaed 
oontraot^d tuberculosis within six saontha after aha be- 
^ia« a as«ab@r tht^ liability under Artielr 4, ae to funar* 
al benefits, aouLd not ariea. there is gcma faint «vi<- 
d«nca that th^^^ deeeasad aefty hava had tneij^iant tub«r<m- 
loeis at thf^ time aha Join<?d th<' oluli but it is not 
suffioi^atly aubatantial to inatify finding suoh to ba 
the fast. 

It is further contended that the teetiraony 
of the hsaeband should not hiive been reoeiired. All th« 
materials f»ot«, how»»T«r, to whi A h«5 testified were 
proven by other witneesea. e© th^t tJ*f error, if any, 
was tmrwl^BB, hn to th«! oontenticn tbat the trial 
jndge waa in error in refueing t* ailaw the witn^ee 
XmIu Itetson to testify to a oonveraation with Father 
Sixon during her iXlnf>9s; the law Ir well aettled that 
suoh tetstlsony in inadsifssible. 

B»?ing of the opinion that, th« oonoti» 
tution and by-lawa of the defend^mt club, whether or not 
r^sther Nixon contracted tubermtleais within the first 
six aontha of her membership, ie iBBsaterial. the judg* 
aent aust stsnd. 

Finding no error* in the record the Jud^ent 
is affirmed. 

U^iixmftt \jk9* 


41« • 2476a 

LKwmsQt mm^Hmh 

Aj)|Hlll<»«« ) 



£4.6 I.A. 62T 

emh mm 

H ceirp* • \ 

UH. JllfitlSj^ TA3fL0B d«liY«rea tho opinion 
of th« oourt. 

CiXaiBiing thflkt R hoarse «na wa^cn bnlooging to 
the «s<(»f«»n<i«nt ana driven by one of th« dof4«Ttd&nt*» •«• 
ploy««», oollidftd with «n «utOi»e>l»ll« of the plaintiff, 
th« latter brouHbt 9ult f«r d6»ag«« and r«<aiorttr«4 a juds* 

• ^ V 

mtfit for $194«S0 and emeta* Thi« appi»'«l in taJcaa th«r(R* 

Th« dctol&ration ailagtffji, 4'^^ , t r al ^.,f , i that on 
Ootobar 29, 1.917, wh«n the plaintiff » ta the ax^aroiea 
of oare, vae driving his automobile w««t on Jaolceon 
louloTard at it» inttraostion with Franklin 8tr«ot* tho 
defandsint nogligantly drovo. in a Bcutherly dirootion 
en franklin atr«ot, a horao dratm TOhiolo, without duo 
ro^rd for ih« oafoty of othnro and in violation of an 
ordinando of t)!i» City of Cinloa^ and, a« a r»i!<ult, otruoJi 
and ran into the plaintiff* o aut02:aobll« and daauH{ed it. 

At th« trifi-l fnur vitnooats war* oallod; J. L. 
Bandor. Lawranc*^ iLindgrcn and mrry X* aobarta for tim 

^laiatlff ; a»d John Qrmamhmn for tla0 4ef«ndnnt« Lln4gr«a, 
th» plaint iff » t«retifi«<i %h&t »n Cotober 29, l§i7» Vetweea 

auitMNililIa » vhieh was his preperi^* vast oa Ja^soa Voula* 
inur4; tliat aa he aw^raaah«4 frai&Iia street iM e«« tiia 
iMiraa and wa^^a af tha 4«f«a4Rat i^oiag ae^^tli &» FrankXia; 
tiiat ]ba *a«v tb«!^r« «se aa acei{l<^»t 9«.mlne ao X put on ssy 
bxmkea end tiurnad soath and trind %& avoid hia, but h« 
ivmt kf>p% en eoauiig aad }^ hit ig^r maaiixaa le ia<p Imek oa 
tlM right h&jRd t>ld«*2 that th« hdrse waa goiag a^.it 15 
alias an bour; Xhtii tli« harmm am« trottlas; that Jaokeca 
Wiilavard la a pa^ll<3 atr<»«t ai^a ^aularant; titnt the «a|paa 
did not ODse ta a atop at th» l»dal«Tard; timt ha was drlT* 
lag bla tnm aut«4«obile at al»e ut 13 alias aa houti tlmt tm 
a result af t*a <»llls(iaa th« rear panel af t^ attt^aoMla 
«aa eruahad la aad laj^ipad ev^r and the veodverk an the la* 
ttide ^rekaa ups tliat th* r««r taa^ a»d tlr« Irene w«*re 
hvnt; thikt aa« af t^ tlr« Iraas cut late m new spare i»^a* 
las on the teiiaiE af t^e sMahlae; that "It Wnt the axle ox 
propallar ebi^t er aeaathlas la th» aacMaa.* Oa oraHa 
axasilRatloa He atated furthcar that t^ ear aaa a left haad 
drive; that ais was at the vhael; that oa« Beader aat at 
his right la the fr&at aaat; that all fcur aerneTm at the 
lateraeetlan are Wilt up vith ^ualat^an hloiOca; that hla 
<^r was llg>ited| that tha jpatveEseist at the jilaae af th«? 
eolllaloa was asphalt; ths^t at the tiia« It ^ma a»&wlai; 
•uad tha pavwsaat waa slippery; that whea he flrat aa» 
dief eadmit* s ^stagon he was ahaut ZO feat east af ?ra»lcllji 
atreet; that wiHia h» aaw the mijgea he ^t oa hie hxaicea 
and turned la the direetloa the «agaa waa goit^; timt 
the left and freat aem^r of tjhie aasaa hit the r^tur of 

tte aatosiobil«; tir^t at thsi tiim of %be aelliBlott f«ur ^r 
five trtm^s f«ll off th« wsMloa ftt »fe»ut the ei«ttt«r of tk» 
iat«»rff««tion; that at th« tia« ©i %}m ooXlifiiioii tiss? froat 
•i»<l of Urn w&^on «*e north of tlift o«st«r of J»akemi 1»o;il«« 
T«r«l; that "h« w»» (mmbIivs faot an4 i^ bmk#o wmrm going 
oa aad uifttaruIXy I «»» going sIoi»4^r tha» tee wa« &]ftd lai 
kept oo £61(1^ oouth^; that h« la^d 'both larak^s oa. 

fho vltneoe. Beaeisr, for the idaiatiff, toeti* 
fie4 that l»» van with th<» ;>l&Utlff at the tin« or the 
collioioa; that he did <^t »mf th<9 «si{|oa until **lt waa 
alii^Bt on top of us*; %h&t it 4i& not stofi at th(? \f9ul«* 
rard; that aa a r««ult of ih* oelliaies tho g&acaine tank 
wsm kn9ck94 off th»? ear and also a tiro en the ba^; thixt 
soae of the tznmka foil off th« ira^oa. On erooa^oxasination 
ho st»t«d that the ttatemohlle ima going about flft«c« aileo 
an )M»ur; that at th^ ti«« it wsun aaowiag; theit there ««?« 
BO Ohftins &n tht^ vbaela; that the Ktfto^mobile stopp«4 «rith> 
is a f«» foet after th<? oolliaios am^ iraa then faoiag to* 
wards the aouihOAOt aernnr of JaoiiaK»a ami Krasiclia, about 
ten or f if toon feet fT^m the eoracrs that ther?* are tuo car 
traeka on frnoidin etreet. 

The witness, Hoberts, far ths plaintiff, tsr^ti- 
fiotf that at the time ho «a.e drlTii^ a taxi goin^ east oa 
Jaokreos boulevard; that ao he sieved tip at S^raoklia etreet 
he B«v a in^oa going oeuth an tfm% street; that the heree 
«a» trotting; that an automobile vae 80»iag veet oa ^laokooa 
hOttlorard; that aa the autogiobile reaoiwd a ^oint in front 
of the entranoe of the XorthweEtera buildiug* at t^^^ north* 
oaat oomer of the iBteraeotioa« the 4rlr«r of the autmoobile 
"started to olaok «9 and turned his oar to the ecuth to avoid 



* otstlllaien, ^nd tii« wa^a, tto^ front purt of tm wm&en, 
hit the rear end of this simj»« ^^r"; that tJae wsgon dli4 
aot step «t thk- l^c^imaing of th*" int^rai^atxan. Oa eroee- 
•atmlaatioa, he tectifi«d i&ii«t ttia 9a^n was trJ&Teliiig 
in ti»«^ eouthbetmd ear txdiok ea Frsnitliii 8tr«^«ti thAi it 
vaa 00 ins nbeut ten tc t««lTe ailtce an hour; ^^mt tn« 
l«f t front of th* -voH^n «trttek tlie attt«au>bil«; tb«t t%M» 
eollielea tooic pl&oe at th« o«nter of ti)« iat«r»«etio8; 
that* of the tranJca tMat fell off thf? tsa^on, oso f«ll ia 
th« @«9t«r And ab«i or t«o ft little attrtte; that &a eftoii 
•f ti?«» ntr««t» th'fre «es plenty of roosa for fc .r car*, 
abr«ftst, tc pass; that trve autot^MIe, «ft«r b^ing etrudc* 
vtat about flT* f««t 8»4 tlken eto^^4; that t>^ wsf^on 
v«nt rigM eu to &liout ten fe«t south of ^mfokwdn ¥ouX«TAr4« 

thp. irltR«ti«, Gran«han» th« driver «f the ^rf« 
v«hiel«, testified for %h<^ dofend«et that h« was drlT.ln^ 
a vaeon loa4 of traaka froa tho llort>ar«8t«im to tl%o Baltinors 
•M Ccbio at&tion; ti^t lao Btopa«4 hits aa^n at tbo aerth 
side of Jackson bc^ilevard ««.Bd loelifKl oast find wast te see 
if aaar auto^aolaile aas e«%^wlng; that th«r pari^^nt wis »li|>p«r3r 
aa it mut "both Slewing and freetx^ln^; that hie w«goa «as in 
the southbound (^r traok on Franklin etreet; that alion iM 
first aaa tho j»lRlntiff*s aiti^aobllo it wr^s Just vest ef 
Fifth avemia, which is the next str#4Pt cast of yraaltlia 
streat; that ia eros^iai; the^ bouleTfird th<i? horse «hi<sh 
hm «ras drlTli^ slipped n»6 fell on his front knees and 
ylumged to ^et up again; tliat wih&9 the T^hioles eolli4«d 
the rear wh^el of hi a ie»gon twis about the oenter of J^okson 
boulevfird; that th«> TtutT 4»id ef th« aatoasbile struck the 
rmat end ef ths aaitoa and knocked six tnsiks off it into 

■^\ ilmx 


th* 8tr«(«t; that th*j fell siore south than north sf th« 
oenter; thttt his yctiion wtmt «b«ut u^rmn fe«»t ^ttmr th« 
aolli»lon; tltat tlt« onljr paxt of tli« imcea iHa^t ^«s« in 
eoQtaet vitis tla^ itut«>!nobil« i»s th^ I«fi r««r «h0«I« 
Oa eresnocxamlastinii, li« «tHt«$«l t)ist IM «««• to a ^«a4 
ft top ^e:for« h« HroY* int« J&«ic«««i J^ouXttvas^; ilmt ik« 
M»ll&»ioa «e€»rred about ti»9 «14iiJl« of tH« teuX«Tatr4. 

ti» plaintiff ^itf-'-rtsd. In «iri4ffn«HJ an er«liB«jse«> 
mt th# 01 1^ 0f tJtoi^g© whiah w»« ^aaa^d Jftrntaiar 19, 1917, 
aii4 pr9Tl44Hi that it »hall 1ft« uala«ful t6 drire "onto 
snjf ^oulavard witMn the e&,%^ llsits of th» Oity &t 
Chieaga irlthoit first brii^li^ »«ah ▼«hial# to a full 
aad e<5ai»l8te ator**'. It aa» »tip«l«tc4 that, if a eertaia 
witneas aaa prf-a^yat, ha m- ild tffoti^ that the rcascnafela 
aad ottsteiuury aharga fox repaira to the autoiaoMXa weald 
^ |134.2£. ¥hf» e»ua« ^-aa triad without a Jttigr aad JudiE* 
B«at onterad la f«%var of the jplalailff and aesainat tha d«* 
famlaat ia the m\m of ^154*g5. 

It la olyvlQua, after axuUyslas tl»? evldeno^- 
ahleh «aa latroaaeod. that the d«t«%xmlmitlQa of liahllltsr 
dopeiide vKpon th« tfcaqparatlTe truetvorthlnaae of tho t««tl« 
aoHjr given hy th« four witnaaaee. If thf court^allaTod 
tha vlta«a3«8 for the plaintiff, th»t th** «R«oa *as beiag 
drlY*n fro® ten to tw^lvo or f Iftaaa silea an hour and tlist 
thi* drliror ssade ao stop at th« ^mtr&ece to the iat«ra«eti©a; 
and, f^urthor, holiarod th«? t<tetlaonjr ©f tho plaintiff 'a 
«ltBO«»«a ao tc th« spaed of tha autOiaobila, that It «aa 
goiiV aheut fiftaan »ilatt cm hO!ir, than thera «aa aaayla «*vl- 
doBoa to support the judgment,, Kilrojf r. Juctrlt o ifg., ^ 
209 ill, ^p, 499. In the latter <»«a eo^sura the folXoalng 
laacuftga; *?lalntiff had a rieht to aaaipie that daf@ndsnt*e 


aK ♦ 

4jrlT«r voalU in thi« r^aisu^r^i •1p8t«;rr« ih« ordlnaao*, end 
plaintiff o«!iaoil 1»« hffl4 %<» ):ffi>T« 1»«!«ii »«glig«Bt in Aet* 
ian upon sueh aa tt«»u»9t4an* ?h« fmilur® to «V««]rrc 
thi0 ordlnimcw ^Knft n«gllc«»a<!! attributal»i<» te th« <ii«ferHii» 
«»i vhioh w«» th* proxinAt« «mtt«« ef tia^ «oaid#nt** 

T2M fftidmoff BMgr giv* ri»« in eur minds to 
tMM suepioion tibttt ih« pifkintiff wfti» driving ^uch f*ete>r 
UuMi fifteen nil«« an hour, Init that is n»t auffioiimt 
to juatiiy u6, under th« oirouawtaaooo, in OTorruling 
Uw 4«t«iiainnti0n of th«> trial J«4g«. a* to tho oXaia 
liy the defendant that, *th«r« »«• no «Tid«noe hoforn 
tho QOurt fto to aaount of dana4^«*} inaoauoh as it «ao 
•tipulatod, }sy oouttool for both smrtieo, that a o^rtain 
9itn«oa« if prttoont, would t«etifjr tJtot a r^aaonabi^ and 
euatoMary chaript for the repairs of th(^ autoiaohiXe *tR>uld 
ho ahout th« fiipuro of IXM.SS", it folXoiro that tho trial 
jndgo upon oon^sXudinc that th«^ d«f«m(i«nt «m« XinhXo for 
whRtoT»r daamgeo thn s>lttintiff nut tax* A wan titon jnoti* 
fiod in fixing thn Judcmont at tho am ^unt isontlonod in tho 

Vindlnis no orror in th« rooerd tMf JudffMWt in 


499 • 84353 

wm'^in nmLQSH, 






MK. JOSTKTi tAYLOH aelivered the opiaion ©f 

th«» court. 

^ jf^«« 1, 1917, tJi© plaintiff, BesRjie 3«i(rger, 
b*gaa an ejtetiftoiit suit in the Superi©y CoJirt aipRln^t 
tl»« defandantft, larmaX B«rger and Tlllle Berg«r, On 
June 7, 1917, the plaintiff filed a deelaratlen and 
r«oit«d therein, aaong other things, that on .Tun*? 9, 
1915, she, tJie plaintiff, boaaae poiesessed of st e«?r- 
tftin flat in :^Hic»go kuova aa^ desoribed ^s: 

•th« «ft€»nd flat in the front of the 
premisf^s known ae 1037 XJovit; Haciae Arc, 
Chicane, Xllineia, wMch said prmniBen the 
said plaintiff. Beaeie Berger, daise as 
owiicr the'<*of, ; nxi as ^ac^, entitled to the 
lmi«diiit« poefiession thereof; and th' eald 
plaintiff, Be»si« Berger, h^in^; the ovmer 
thereof and being »o pfj«;s«r>r«d thereof the 
•aid defendants, Israal Berger and Til lie 
Berger, hie wife, afterwards, to-wit: On 
the firnt ^i\j- of Jyly in the year ©f our 
Lord, one thouaand nine hundred and fifteen, 
ent red into the saia pre-^iees stml ejected 
th*? fs-iici plaintiff, 30i?Kie Bnrger, thrrefroa, 
and unlawfully withhold froa t]m aaid plain* 
tiff, Baasie Ber^jer, the poesesaion thereof 
to the dnukge," ate. 

On July IS, 1917, th^ d^fenuV»ntB filed a pl«a 
alleging;, lanan^ oth«r thinga, that the plaintiff had aa 


iitX* to th« i>rop«|rtjr in qu«eti.oa and on nermi^r 26 » 
1917, fil«d seriaiti 9t^r i»l«i«* Tlia Xatiejr a*e4 a0t 

The CAuse wae tr^«d IwiNr* « J^XT sa<i 9a 
i^ril 17, 1918, %hf> folle«iag rerdl^ reuoeredi 

**», the Jury, find the dp^fsn^ant* ^kltsf 
of utilavfully wittool4ing th« poseeesiet} of the 
piwperty 4yBoril»e4 tn the plaintiff's dc^elara- 
tien, and that the right to ^ese«eeion of saitii 
property ie la ih® ^i«ftintif f • ^ 

On April 17, 1918, an 0rd«7 wstm e»ter«<l t]^t< 

•tli« plaintiff de haY« and reeorr-r ©f aad fr«w 
t)» def<?naB«t the poeeeceiea is fee siaple ©f 
th»t certain flat or a^artaieat, with th« appur- 
tenamefts, situated ia Oiiea^, in thp Oeuntjr of 
Cteek wad St«te of Illinois, described as foiloi»s: 
thm 8«oond flat in front of th« preeaisea knowa &s 
1097 South Kaointt Ave., vhieai^, ill,, and that a 
vrit of possession do issue titf^r^for as^ t^t tte 
plaintiff do imtTe find r«eoT«r of and froa the de» 
fendants h«r costs mid charges in this ^half •«• 
peade4 ftnd im.rft execution therefor te whi^ the 
def enuants exoe^t* ** 

It le claiBMd hj oounsel for the defead<jint« ttet 
ma raliU Judgment could be had a^a the rerdiet ».n4 thstt, 
therefore, it was fetallj defeetiTs; that iiia«s&uch as the 
jtad^Bient prorides that the j^laintiff have said rftoorf;r fr«» 
•the defendant* pesseasion of *th« second flat in front df 
the presilses known as iOS7 South Hftciae avaaue, Sjioe^o, ill»* 
It does ast felletr the declaratioa «r the Terdl«it* 

V« are of the opinion that both the Terdiet and 
the Jttf^giEteat are oerreot* It ie true timi. the statute pro- 
Tides uador Section SO, Pantgraph 7 of Chapter 4S, ea 
S4aetment, that, *'Th« Terdiot shall also specify the estate 
whieh shiill have been tstahlished on the trial, ^ the plain* 


tiff ia i»h084 fiiTQ7 it aj^U be r«n4i»re«l, vrhether euidi 
eetat« b« la fe« or for hie ovb life er for ti^ life of 
ftBOth(*r, etatiai; such llTes, er «hcih«r it h^ for a Ilea 
•f ^e»rB» nfid «9«»«)ifying dt^^e^ticB of Ruch ter»,* but Tarhea 
t]b# verdict, Rs in tli# iit«t«»t c^^ee, fi»d« tbc d«feaaant« 
guilty of unlawfully withheld ing the poes^t-sion of the 
property described in plaintiff *« deolarntioii and th«re 
is ft description of th» T^repffTif In tiio d»olaratioii« w« 
ar« iBotuad, ia %11 reason, to hold ttet tlt€> statute has 
b«OB eos^lied with. Ifsdlo gk ?♦ Hadlook , 22 111, 384; 
iUaathart t^. gankler . 19 ill. 47. 

Tiw laeticulous eritioiioB that tl»^ wor<i» "tlMl 
••eend flat in front of the premiB«s* d«ocrib« prop<?rty 
tixat ia, in the lmMD'«£* <>f oouiuiol for th« defondsattt, 
**sot on the pr«ulo'?B in (luestion Imt is in front of the 
l^remis^'s'' t we are unable seriously to «nt«rte.ia. A set 
seri«^& of words, whiebi, when t«dbnicalljr ee as trued as 
a natter of lansyAge, contain a do tbl<i^ meaning . should 
be glY«a t^t su»aning, and cisnsidf'red as h»ving only 
that iseauing, n^iieli th«y «tnd th«>ir eoB^AXt aa«l eosmoa 
•ease obviously tu^gest. 

The words in thf: <^olaration are* *7he seoond 
flat in tbe front of the preailsrs known as 1037 South 
Baciae AT«,* The words in tJte ju4gm©nt ordor are; *Ttoe 
•eoond flat in front of the i>re@ises known as 1037 South 
Raoine Ave«* The dif;or«noe is tJUat ia the deelaratioa 
the definite artiele preeodes the word front, «8d in the 
J u d gw e n t order it is oaitted. We are of the opinion that, 
reasonably interpreted, each dessriptioa is sufficient. 



It io further c ntended on the p«urt of t>i« 
4ef«ndjmtB* that ths Juug.^ent whloh was ent«F7«4 was net 
entered againet both th« dc^fendfl^ate. In the order of 
April 17, 1913, the worde were used, *tt» plaintiff do 
hare and r«eov<»r ©f ana froa the dfifeadant*. That, of 
seuree, is in the eiogular, but la tl^ latter part of 
the order oeour the words *aad ih^it a writ of poseession 
do issue therefor, and that the plaintiff do h^Te aad 
recover of and from t)^ defendants her eosts and charges 
in this \»ehalf expended, and have execmtioa th«^refer, 
to which the defendants except.* In the verdict of the 
jury the words oeeur; 'We, the jury, find th^ defendants 
guilty* etc. The record shows that the defenc^rmts is 
their speeiaX plea both adaitted %)mt they were la 
possession, ^Idently the use of tim word def«>ndant 
in the singular innte&ci of the plural in but one in* 
stance, and that in Ihf early part of th«- erde^r of April 
17, 19X3, w@s a clerical mistake, and as stated by the 
Supreme fJourt in ?|offerbertfc t» lULnkhard^ , 5S 111. 450; 
*»e slight a mistake, when we ean see froB the context 
what wriS dl early iattmded by the court, ought not to 
vitiate and render void a judieia,l reoord. * * » It 
would be trifling with the foxes of Justice to entertain 
«a objection so trivial ana devoid of actual merit." 

Finding no error in the record the Judgtaent is 
af f i rmed. 

261 •> 25158 


Appelle«, / ) 


vs. \ / i 

l.CKJX>?r Gti'ARArnjt & ACOi/jeNT ) 

16I„A., 6 27 

"Wiia »uit grew out of a clstiiK; toy plaintiff, « 
i»]aLysiciRn, tor sKdicftl servlcob rendered varioua perscns at 
Alton, lllincis, wiio «f*r« Injured wfeile In th^ (employ of -^e- 
fendsint*a n&eured. upon trial by the ecurt the ioaues w«r« 
found ag^inat X£i.t (k^tfrnt jmuX, und Juut^^imt <mtero<i on th« findlnf; 
in tiae sum of 4>'a&^ , txom wiacxx (i«f«i:}<liu>t ai^peals. 

Tha rait is en oontraot, Hnd tne 8t&tejea«nt cf olaiia 
••t« cut tiiat tiie ••rricfts w«re r»«<ier«d in j^urauttrie* cf »n 
afiT«!es€»Kt ent<Rr«4 Into Uetwesn th« p«rtie» on or »K>out tJie 
16th day of July, 1914. Th« ft)&«tr«et lif*r« fil">d do«» not in- 
for» ua fhf»t the nll«g«d ««r««iii«nt wn», but r©f«r« acroly to 
•Exhibit A* and '•Kxiiibit B," without tt word R» to their oontente, 
Alto msny letter* wwro Introduood in «rridenoo which It is a«ld 
•how the relfttiOBO betw«on th« par%i*», but th« a1batr»«t «!▼•* 
no «ugg:e8ticn aa to th«lr oontonta* ctii«r wvldenoe »1 «o la otait- 
t«d. However, it le a fair infaronca froir. vrhat dooa appaar that 
plaintiff proparly provad hia e»ployas«!mt by th« d«f endant and 
rendered the eerwieaa for which he ol«i»a payment. 

under a aeriea cf holdinga by both tJaia «nd the ,iu- 
praise Court, tiio abatraot is the pleadini.: of the party i-reaenting 
it, «nd jBuat contain auffioient of the record to enable the review- 
ing court to deteroilno the force of tii«» errora aaaigned. ^e will 

n«t go to the record to dl»cov«r <?round» fcr rftreraml, i armin g », 
?cb»» yurnlturt Co «. 211 111, Aj?p. 522; B«Tl»ery t, iiftl l^ iab- vinyweyd 
C0,» 209 111, A.vr, 29':), and cas«t eitsd, 

PurthKsrjBor*, the filing of an iRoo«i;,X<5t« dbatrnct. ia 
▼ielative of Hule 10 of thia ooort* 'ith.ex'^ suoii a fniluar* occurs, 
«UBd Ui« e-vid«noc »,« aaetrtdined frcs» th« £*tat«H««it« in the briefs 
is ooDflicting« th« Jad4iia«nt will »Gt h*s diaturb«d. jiRybcy t. 
ltollish*Hfty«ard Co. , aupra ; Cit^ptxll v. Cawggbe^, cm ill, d37. 

The jucie-m<''nt cf tn« iuniclpftl Court ia affirmed* 

3C3 - 20160 

j AiU'^^i. m.m KiwiciPAj, COURT 

) / 0? CKICADC. 

Aipellfnt. ) 

216 T h.. 627 


FlAintiff brou(^it suit is^nd, upon trial hy tha court, 
hBA Judi^ent MgAlcvt tb« dAfendant iwhiob. w« are askt^d to reTer««, 

Defendant in hia abatmet of the st««tutory record 
••ta forth the flndlnM and Judgnant of the court an follows; 
•Finding, lotion for n«w trial and in arrest. irAcr cY<}rruling 
motions, Jud«?s«nt order,* This gitea us no lnfor»i«tion whatever 
as to the findinif and Judgaient of the court of which oomplaint Is 
csadc, so that we do not knew whether thijy were Justified or not. 
It has frequently been neld tnat th# abBtraet is the pl^m^ing of 
the parties and must show the record of th<* trl«l court that 

the court of review may be so informed as to -atiat took i/iaoe 
as to be able to ^ud^^e whether or nut error was oo!»ffiitted. 
Hannipg v, Tobey yurniture go.» 211 ill, App. WiJ; Barber 
▼ . JMell 1 eh#Ha.ywai- d CO , , 209 III. ApF. ^499, and eases oited. Mot 
being Infoxued as to what the jud^pBont of tiiO trial court was, it 
will net be disturbed. 

plaintiff by its statement of claim aueerted that, 
relying en certain rei^reseiitetions laade oy tae defendant, it aolA 
certain goods tc the J, & <-, ccract Coiapany for wnich it iias not 
been paid; that the said rapreaentatlooa aade by the defendant 
were untrue, and that the defendant knew that they were false <aA 

frau4lul«nt when ih«y w«r« tukda, and tnat tkiqr ii«ptt and* solely ftnd 
only for the purpo«« •£ f raudul enUy cmd illegally scouring utid 
a<sroaandi«« fron Ui,« plaintiff, #• Juold tJ^iat froa the evid«ne« 
th« oeurt oould prop-rly find that th« defendant jcado r«i roawnta* 
tioBS aa aaa«rt«d in plaintiff * a utatwiient of olttietk* lD«i^inuing on 
April 4, 1917, and tiiat h« is liable Tor th« aalea etado to the 
J« ii 0. Ccroot Coatpany ouliaequsnt to that dato. 

llnintiff by eroao-arrora ciueationa tht aaouat of tho 
jud^ont ent«trod by th« trial oo\art, which it 1^ ceneadad «»• 
baaad upon tho figuroa appf^arlnn in plaintiff *« atattjuifmt of 
olaijn. If tJiia is true. It wno tha reault ©f rlnlntiff 'a own 
niataka in i^iving fta erroneoua amount In its atatftitient, Howorar 
tiiia Bjay be, in tha abaenoo of a propar ahowinf; to thla court aa 
to tha Msount of tha Judj^ont «nterad, w oannet undartaka to 
ehange or »adlfy the aaiaa. 

Tha judgment ia aff ixiaad* 

iOJ itSWte *as Ii£t»i/S5'rl 



iH iti»ti- 

""7 / 


216T.A. 627 

Plaintiffs brought auit Rll«f,ln£ that th6 defoita&nt 
b*4 r«oeiY«(i certain on«h for th« U9ft of tat plaintiffa. u^on 
triMl , At the cencluaion of all th« rridenoe. the oourt instructed 
th« Jury to find for the plnintiffa and to aesott da£:^e« at the 
%xm of |t5,767,fio. A Y«rdi0t «rs returned pureuant to thie» upon 
whioh judti<!n«nt waa tmtered* defendant aaks that it be reversed. 

The declaration alle^^ed th«t on or nbout Jgay 1, 19cj6, 
the def en ant had rec(»4Ted the sum of #5,0C0« b«lnK the proceeds 
of a life inauranee policy on ti^se life «f aeoVf5« 3eeb<(»rg«»r. the 
father of plaintiffs, end which wao c"%\i«ed by Hiaj to be jaade pay- 
able to hie brother Ciiarlea, the defendant. In truat for the 
plaintiffs, who were then infante. To eupport this claiai plain- 
tiffs proved that thejr were the ohilaren of Geortje .jetib«rger, de- 
fendant's brother; that their father was killed in » store orrned 
and conducted by riia in Oiiioagc. in the ye^r 1907, at anich tiae 
the plaintiffs, Martha M. and %laie ». £$aeberger, ¥«*re rainors; 
their aiotner had died sereral years before, ao that by the death 
of their father they became orphans. 

A few days after their father's funeral the jjlaintiffa, 
with their grandfather and grandwother and anoth?ar uncle, met at ths 
store eliieh had been conducted by their father, r^efendant was also 

i}r*»«Bt» And produe«d from th« r«om f«s»«rly occupied by u^org* 
3««b«rg«r a box vhieit !»• opaaed ^nd ^iri^tieh oontalned iJsi« priv«t« 
p«$!«r» ©f Ge©rg«, aibOd^ ^fiiicii w»« » lif« in»ur««:»«« policy for 

brotii«y, mta nam«4 a» 6««.ef le4«ry. All of tii»»« persona t«»ti« 
fl«d as witne«e«» upon tliw trlftX* and all of Ui<i&>, exoept tan d«* 
f«n<ia»t, testified that dsfendant then infoinned tli«Bi thutt this 
|5«00G policy bad btt«a taki^n out by CI«!org«i for Ui« l>#n«fit «f 
his ehildirca, th« plaintiff »« but had basn ta>:«n in th« naais of 
th« defendant* Cliarlss S««!berg«r« so that he could hartdls and 
put it out at int«(rsst for 0«o»g«'8 tshlldren. ilaitttiffs* «▼!• 
denoe further snowod that froos u^j I, 19Cd, to Fov«»bsr 1« 1916* 
dof andant p>aid to the plaintiffs int«jr«at *tt th© rat» of six par 
cent, pwr annum; that v^9n thcsa InatalloeritB of int^rwst war* 
paid they w«r*» aoe<pmpaniad by letters written by thp a«f»nrtajit in 
Which tho pay«i«Qt was described aa tuo int«?reat on th» aforesaid 
$5,Coc. cocaaionally tii« letters iadieatod tii«t tho lnt«r«»t was 
not paid pra£iptly by the pK/rty to ^q» th« ffionay had b««n loansd* 
at which times def«fiidant would »tat«^ that hn was advancing th« 
interoat cut of his own funds. Uotit if not all of thesa s«mi* 
annual payments wara aooostpaniad by latt^rs written by the d»f»nd- 
ant, in which tho raisittanoea are daaoribed as »int«)r«teL due," 
Thasa letters so iipneif ioally and clearly fix the character of 
these payasents as interest en the #6,or;C invested for the benefit 
of the plaintiffs, as to negatiYS oaaq>let«ly any sugt^estioa thmt 
they ware mere i^ratuities, 

titefendant takes the poftitien in this ecurt Uiat he 
has deniftd the statawent of the bs^nefipiaj int««rest of the plain- 
tiffs in th© policy, testified to by th«* pl»intlffs» witnesses, 
hence the trial cotirt ahould have ^erstitted the variant etcries 

to be submitted to the Jury, ordinarily this would seen to be 

true, but an exafiiinMtion of tb« r«oerd« ^mith sp(»clal refereno« to 
th« quostioao put to the defeuOftnt u{;on the triml and iui» Rnswert 
tJaereto, dleolosee tliLnt defendant did not epeolflcally deny the 
statement attributed to hiJB. the question put to him ie long and 
includes not only the alloised etatement but» conjunctively « other 
tttattert referring to a poliey upon the life of the defendant for 
the ben«fit of a son of hta. Thio latter satter ia irrelevant, 
and ita truUt or falsity i^t^at^rial. Defendant awy have been 
warranted in denying that he said all of the tnings oontained in 
the question, but auoh a n«j;ativ« would net asaount to n denial 
of the pertinent and material question as to his statement oon* 
corning the purpose of the partioulsr policy in question. Xt 
is rather sug^«^stive th^t while he itas interrogated speoif ioally 

s to the exi«t<@nce of a }:^olioy for the use of his own eon, he 
i»a8 no I qu&s^ioned specifically as to the particular policy in* 
VQlved is tiUs case. 

we iiave htipt what has soa«ti»«s been oall&<i a negatirs 
pregnant, where the denial of the conjoined faots is consistent 
ititii the truth of nay one of the s»ep«rat© fncts, 5oae of the re- 
iported esses go ao far as to oonatrut auch a dimial as an adt&is<» 
sion of every isat^^rial fact contained in the <i)u«^stion. The rule 
is stated in 31 Cyc, :^06 thusj "Wliere a number of fncts are «1» 
le«ed ocBjunctively by plaintiff, and the answer denies them con- 
junctively, it is held that the denial goes only to th« oonjunc- 
tl<m and adsiito the separate existisnee of each fact, or goes only 
to certain fscts and admits the ethers," Aeong the oases sup- 

ortlnf: this rule are; ?» parte vall , 107 U, a. 265; YouhM ▼. 
Catlttt . e !juer 4^7 j i>ttllen v, aright , 54 Minn. 514; Qumow v. 
^oenix ins, C£., 46 J. Car. 7Wj .gMih , wt^^. (^c. v. Montana ^. ^ ]_, 
Co., 15 kont. 34S; :j«viaon v. iowell, 16 Mow. i»r, 467, Titfit these 

€««•• h«iY« to do with eod« pleadings do«t not lessen the souad 
loglo cf th9 rule. In. th« lars* latitudo of orikl iostLiaony by 
witnesvea it it a very aifiiplv atid ««8y tioing to adauoe a spooifitt 
and e«t«(^orical denial of a atattfrial aasartien by tii« ochar tide, 
and if th« quoittioa put to the defenoaat and aia anawar fail ad in 
this reg;«trd h« Aiust ttuffar tha disadvaetaita rai^ardlaaa of hia in- 
tan iiena. 

There ie oonsiderable ferae in the point by plaintiffs' 
eouneel that eren If defendant had denied the etatwoent said to 
hare been made by his when the policy ims pro lueed, yet hie let* 
tere anu r««)ittafioes of Interest ooveting a p«'riod of over eiigiht 
years so ooii&pletely lainiaine the foroe of the denial as to brine 
it irithin the rule that ;^«ra testisonv is tao inoonolueiire anA 
unsubstnntiftl to be the foundation of a verdiot it ia proper for 
the court to direot a ▼erdiot, «« In oases i»h«re there is no evi- 
dence. This prvubllee was j'pproved in offutt v. Colmobian yxyo si- 
tion, 176 iJl. 472, and foodmao v. Illinoia ft . 4 jav. Bank , iJll 
111. &7ft, 

C«aplaint is aiade that the oourt refused te persiii 
defendant to testify as to aoneys sala to be loaned by hiie to 
Oeer^e iJeeberger. A nusiber of leading questions touohiais; upon 
this point were put to the witneaa, and objeotions to them 
properly austained. :>efend&nt did net make any offer as to what 
he expect c4 to prove in Uiis rtsgard. we oannot predicate error 
upon exp^'oted answers the substance cf wtiich does not appear in 
the record, auoh answers may or may not have been emterial* or 
itay have been wholly lacking in rro>i>»tlvo foroa. Ittner Brio k 
BS.* ^» Ashby . 198 111. Sftis, 

Reversible error is said to have been oor-^itted by 
the trial oourt in refusing to j2;ive t© the Jury written instruo- 

liens tendered by the d«fend«int» nsd in refueing te allow d«f«nd« 
m3t*a fittorn«y to Addfeos the jury. After the eourt had deolded 
te instruct the Jury peremptorily, the (^i'ving of further in* 
etruotione or «jrf|:u«eiit to the Jury l»y counsel v^ould Ite entirely 
ueeleee and auperfluoue. There ^ma no <;rror in thie regard* 

under th^ reeord mAde by the parti ea the oourt wiM 
Justified in ite rullnge »n6 in its dlrf3ct.ion tc find for the 
rlaintiffo, and we eee no reoeon to revere*. The Judg«»nt is 
th«?refore affirmed* 


•23 • ;ss;^oi 




216I.A. 628 

TM« ia M j?reoe«tUnfr: fer divorce in 'wixlch th« hus1»»jn(l 
ohargee the wif« with adultery » ft»a apparently th* d«f«!nd»nt 
count<R]rohArK«d with a ereB8*blll; tlils lattor. nom^rttr, is not 
before us. This oentrovertjr bet^ireen the pttctie* hat been in this 
oourt before. 4e« ji&l , 3 l, v. aall . *iC.l 111, App. 5^9. s*'® ^,h«r« neld 
that it was errorieous tc refer suca ft OAuae to a ism.9t»r xn oxxanoery. 
Upon reversal and ranandinfi the cause prcoe«!ded to trial before a 
Jury, milieu found ^hat Uae evidenae supported the alle«^»tions of 
the bill, and a decree pursuant thereto was rf«nt«r«d« From this 
defendant appeals. 

It dees not seen to be seriously controverted that 
the evidence Justified the finding of the Jury as to the guilt 
of ti,e defendant, jSxawination of the record leads to the oonolu- 
slon that the charge of the bill was abundantly supported. 

The only points retjuirini; attention upon tjiiis appeal 
relate tc Kcsie technioal matt<$re, the j>o1kv is m«»de that at 
the ti«e of the trial and entry of the decree the bill and antiwey 
were lost and were not restored until flK?veral terms after Uie en- 
try of the decree. There in no B^rit in this. It is not properly 
assigned as error, The only assignments of error tjuose filed 
with the sjiiort record on iarch S» 1919* and this point ia not jtnero 
awdo. Ho order of this court was #ntered ji^erBiittin^i the finding of 

any ftdditlon^I OBSigiiaents of error, &• r«ctulr«d by l:u%0 Id, fxAxthse 
aor«» tiic parties w«r»t tc trial s*itiiOut objeetion. groy xtj;^ v, jjj^^j^- 
ieSai, 124 III. APP. B12, 

no m^aigtment of mrror is n«4« touchliae th« introdu«> 
tlon of 9TJ d*no«, so th«t we G«ntt9t consider the claia tiiiftt it 
vaitt ibVTor to introduce f$videnoe tending; to prove f«dult«rroue oo»- 
duet by the df>fendftnt efti»r Uie date of the filing of tiie bill, 
Even if this ^oint vere proi^erly before as, we dc not see aow 
the adsiseion of evidenoe of ocnduct subee<iueat to the filing of 
the bill vculd re<^uire « reveraul if th«» ohRrge caentioned in the 
bill WAS sufficiently proven, es ia the ettse here, 

Ae tr other aliened errors in the adaiioslon of tes- 
timony, it is suffiolent to oay thstt no esaii^nttent of error be- 
fore us alleges errors v;ith reference tc the mdr^iasien of evi- 

It is >a&id that it v»» error to deoree th^t the de- 
fendant v^ithin ten dttyt vacate the premises occupied by her« 
which «as Ute ]>rop«a>t7 of the oomjvlainant, on the i^round that 
no suoh relief was sought by the bill, we sre of the opinion 
that Knifi is not a ease adjudicating rights to property. The 
evidence showed that the oottplninant owned the property in ques- 
tion, i^hioh had been occupied by the iparties ns their loaio, 
upon th*:- (mtry of the decree of divcroe for her fault, ahe for- 
feited all her estate and interest in this property, Ghep, 41, 
eeo, 14, T)Ower (inird'a «. :i.). Tn Brown v. ifeith , 83 111, 291, 
it was said under siKilrtr ciroMmstiftnoes that ''hsr rights to any 
and {9^11 portions of the house oeased, and had she possessed the 
least delicacy of feeling, or oriinary sensibility, she would 
at once have left the ire^^i^es, without waitiniis a notice so to do. 



Aft«r th« diTore*. he^ rights tenrinat«d • ♦, ahe wtta not a tenmnt 
on auff eritne«, Uut an iatruaer fro» »,nd sftor * « the (j»y th0 di* 
Toro* waa granted,* 

fhe order to vacato in th« inotiuit case vmt^ tlnijply in 
&ici of tiiie decree • and «aa not audi relief as was eoufht to l»e 
obtained under section 17 of ths i>iYcree aot, inTulvod in Si oyer 
T, lieyer . Zb& XXI. 456. 

Upon the i&erita the decree ie amply supported by 
the eiridenee* and the points above notieed not being of euffi* 
cient iKaportance to require a revsraal, tlie decree is afflriiiod. 



335 . 20214 

eorporatioai., ' \ 

KCKTA& COM> CCi|ir>Ain^ 

\ A|ip«ll«c, 


pel I ant* /) 

01-' CHICAOO, 

•^ ^16Lx 628 

On lt» cJ«i» for the pi^urohfts* i^Ticm of coal sold 
•nd delivered to the defendariit, plointiff )a«d judgsa^it toy de- 
fault for $722,24 fro« which defwRdftnt flipp»«l8. Kntry of 
tti« judf^ffirnt followed the striking of d«f «nd«ir»t»8 third iiffi«nd«4 
affidavit ef jr*>rlt» for fftllijtrfc to »«t up a geed and auffiolent 
d«fen»« t.c plain tlfcf'B j-.ctlors. 

r>«f«nd«nt*» ar^cunant hmf ralataa solely to tiia 
•uffloienoy of »aid affidavit of jasrlta, A« this court haa 
h«?retofor« atrlokan tbe id ill of exoeptiona froia the filee, tiie 
affidayit ia not regularly before us for exAjralnation. Kow«iver, 
froffl a perusal of the cootenta of the abstract and briefa, we 
approve tne action of the trial court in refusing to peri^it it 
to be filed. 

we are lospreased with the auggeation of plaintiff's 
counsel that the various movea of the defendant in this oaae, 
including the appeal, were taken for delay, and acoordinf-ly 
will allow plaintiff $72 as statutory damages; the JudKJBent is 
bereoy affirBsed, 

sofivmrni WITH 3?A?irro«Y dakac^^j. 


-ar ^!^ V' 

323 - 44674 \ 


Appeal eS| 

\ ) A/isAi, mm mvxciwAL court 

'». \ ) / 

\ ) / OF CHICAOO, 

THr yicm-lTY AHD CA3ll|AI.TY 

c»..«, o, «,,^^«^.^ w 216I,A. 62:8 

Thia is MX mppmiX. fro» » ^u^jsent of Ul« i^uulo if^l 
oaurt in fatMr of th« plMlntiff una agftinat the d«f«n<iknt far 

Tii« d«f«ncj»ttt l8»u«(i « heAitlx in»ur«u>G« pel ley unci<ur 
th« tertftii ef whiou it «.gx-«fli4 to p«.y l»(i« uity to plnintlff at tl-ie 
rat« of fki&o per ir««k ia ih« event tu^t it* »«or«tikry« cnnrlss &. 
Brown, fthould auffer « dltaibUity, aa a«fiu«a in tlia fellowintf 

elftuaa of tba pcltoyt 

*!$en»ecinfinlne dianbiliiy tlufct iaM»ii»<dtiAt«)y and. oontinu- 
euaty follows a p^ried of confining disability and raaui ts 
frost the illness OAu^ine «&id oonfir;in|; disiwbility nnd pr«« 
Tent a th-? ass^.ir«d {bu'- not nsoeaaarily <-« tii« ©xteiit of ccn- 
fi«in<5 liim in the««) f roars p^?^fc^/iriillg any i»«d cvsry iind 
of Juty p«rl«ininjt to his oooup't'^tiOD,* 

No stAtM&ent of f^ct i9 contRin«d in ih« brief and 

•TRUjEent of oounssl for plaintiff «nd w« ther»*fcrft ««»u»a th*t 
the 8t»it«»«!fent in the brief of defenciwnt oorraotly sintea tha ft»eta 
of thff c«»e. 

It is sllagsd in the statement nt ol«i« filed In the 
e»u»« Umt tne ];>o]icy in ciuestion -urn* issued ivooesber IV, 1912; 
that it contained a stipulation of aftrranties whiah th« inaursd 
by the ncoeftanee of the pclioy wj^rrstnted to be truej th«t ea 
January .il, l'?15. Brown oontr&cted « non-oonfining disability tjaat 
ittatediatel nd oontinuouely f«aio«red a period of eonfining uis- 
ability; that the non«conf ining disability had at t*ll tinses during 
its oontlnu^noa i^revented Brown fro« folloviniC «ir«ry and any kind 

a .A 

of duty p«rt*ininf. to hi» eoeu]^tioa, mnd tlx»t (lef«n<iftnt > 

•Bgrewd ftnd proisi««B to pay te Chjsrles ??, Brcwn so long a» !txe 
lives «Rd mi.ff9T» th# did«i1»ll iti«»» abov« iiK»syillon»<i, the mm of 
two hunar«<l fifty dollars (ii50) per wttek, pays^bl* quarterly, 
in th* evert of suoh aie&bllity oentinuing fcr » period «x- 
oeftUinK threo (3) months, Tiie payments due beoftuae of C^t^iarles 
i, browti^n illness were ;»a4e p«y«ble by tJbe i»ssigi)«£«»nt to the 
plaintiff. Tliet defendant tvom time to tJj»e sinoe J«nue«ry Zl, 
1913, pursuiuit to the iolioy» TerbAl tftgreesient »nd ftswigristent 
thereof* i;<al(l as a jert of the clniAs the hum of nineteen 
thousand, five tumUxeU dollars (.^li>»5ot<)» but taere»tft«r on, 
tc>M,<it, lioveokber 6, 1^14, defendant refui^ed to r^oo^^nise or |pay 
any further olaijss U*<«ir*»unaer; vWft Uisre is now du^ the j, Iain- 
tiff frois tiie defenUunt %h% one lest maturing i^Hyment to*^it: 
ti*irty-.two hundred fifty dollars U-3»26i)j on eaid eicoount,* 

An asiended statement of clain was filed whloh la 
substance i«ll«ged faats showing the value of Bro'<im*s services to 

April 12, 191S, the defendant filed its amended af- 
fidavit of aerits in arhich it alleged that the plaintiff and Breea 
wilfully ftnd f rnudul f'ntly repreeent^'d tc def<!«nd»»nt Uist Broen had 
oontr»otedi a serious illness which resulted in neoessarily confin- 
lag him and rreventing bl» from p<?rferBiing th.? duties ©f his coeu- 
pation; that as n result the defendant had paid to lain tiff 
||2C,c<>c; that, it had ne knowledge, and, in the eKerciee of ©are, 
could not have obtained knowledge of the true oonaition of Brown ♦s 
health, etc, 

lara^raih 4 of the afficiavit of nerita all^sad IM 
substenoe that the polioy in question t»as null and iroid because 
Brown and plaintiff were guilty of certain brfiicries of warranties 
and In nakin^; felse statet^ients in conneetion with the contract, in 
that they laade the following statement: 

*»Wo Accident, Health or Life Ineuranoe issued tc ne has 
be«n canceled; nor h^e any renewal of euch insurance been re- 
fused; nor has any application ever stade by ne for auoh in- 
surance been deel ined. 

1 am in sound condition mentally and physically;" 

that the above rnresentations were not true in that Brown had sada 
en application fcr ln8ur«ince prior to th« Isax^noe of th« roi ioy 

Mia imcii iui»ur»no« hmd bttma deelin«d, of whioii faoi the defend* 
ant had no knowlcd£6 %nd. In th* oxei*ci»« of due ccir«, could 
not i^T« obtained suoh lcnowledg«; that Brovm ttnd t)i« plaintiff 
bad e»do fAl«« stat«»«nt» and warranliea aa to &rami*» nental 
and ]»|iy«leal oonditioa and tbiat *'the warrantl-<s as to tha 
phyalcsl oonUtioB of aaid Charlaa K, Brown* at herttefert 
■tat«d« v»ra vuoh that he waa not in a aound condition phyaio«))r 
at the tima and pXaoa nforaaaid,* 

In m 8t«t«SB?«nt of ««t-eff f il«d by defendant it 
aoui^^ht to r«eovor fro« plaintiff the mm nt |19,500 with int^^r* 
•at, which n\m hnd bean paid to plaintiff, aa alldgtpd in tha 
atfttoeont of claim* on the allegation th«t the defcn^idant was 
induced to aaJea tha paymonta to plaintiff becoitae of wiarapra# 
aantationa, f«Llaa atatwienta and >ifarranti«B ado at the ti»i<^ iho 
policy '«aa isauad. Ti^oaa oiiarefresantfttions* falaa atuteFi^^nta* 
«te,« wero liiubii^tHaitial ly th'» »««« aa all >%fcd in the affidavit 
of toexiita. The olaim of aat-off alao »at up oth«r fciota to th« 
effeot that Bro«m and plaintiff had stado other falae atHteai^nta 
eonoerning Broi»n*o phyaioal ocndition and hf>altii aubse^juent to tht 
iaauanoe of the polioy. 

In an eiffilaTlt attached to th«i claisi of set-off it 

«aa ateted tn«t there eaa due the defen^lant fro® plaintiff the 

wua of $19*5(70 with interest th«?reon; that the nature of the 

defendant *a claim is» aa follo^ra: 

•VoT the r«covery of Rsoney pnid by the ylalntiff and 
Oharlea K, Brown under and by tirtiiK of a p> licy of insjurance 
"vhieh, by reason of the falae »iaatatw"*ita or bre&ohea of 
aairranty* wse on the date of ita lasiuance, and l;ba at all 
tijaea ainoe aaid ciate been null rnxd to id. Tjefendant hereby 
refera tc th<t^ above and foreg* ini at«teci«nt of claia of eet-off 
aad hereby maiiea aame a port hereof," 

on April 17, 1W1&. ffiotion of plaintiff to atrike tha 

asienaed affidavit of aerita* except th«i aeoond pivragraph tn^reof , 

was aileired and plaintiff's motion to atriiie the clai« of aet«off 

frofli th« fiX«8 VAs als« allov«4. 

On th« trial ef t;h# cause f(ro«n/i.ak«d th« qu«>«tion 

wh«th«r ho hftd b««n r«J«otAd by th« S^mtiml Llf« Inauranc* CoajMiny 
la 1905; fin obJ«M»tion to thle (|ue»tlon mtn su»t»in«(l by th« tri*). 
Jud|K« for th« vtf&ttan, aa h« atattidf *%hn ^mvrwnlf as I u»d«r8t«nA 
w»* »tri«ken from this r«oord by tk« aetion of th« juUi^e t«^o en« 
tered the taction, • 

We are oaXled upen to dec id* first » tihetiier the oitiia 
of 8«t»cff filled by defendant ie guffioiant. In <teter!()ir(in$; this 
question we are not snueh aided by ref«^re«oe to rul« 17 of ti^e 
]i£:unioipnl court* nor to certain cases conatruing and interpreting 
that rule, fhe saatter relied upon by defendant in hie olaia of 
eet-off i» in su-batwDCe! a claiia against th« plnintiff ffjnd its 
eufflcifii^oy should be tested by rules applicable to stato^ents of 
claiw rather than by these aff <»etinK affldarits of merits. The 
charge in the set-off is thet th^ plaintiff and Broim, by false 
Rtat^senta and warranties, bad Induoed the defeninnt, who was 
charged to be without ne^liKenoe. to pay IndSRsnities to plaintiff 
and thBt th«se indemnities b^onuse of wuch false .?tftt''#erit8 iwere 
recoverable baak by tit« defendant. 

It is asserted for tne plaintiff that a suit at lav 
will not lie to recover back j&oney paid upon an insurance jolloy 
W^ea the graumia ihat the policy contains untrue warranties or 
was i8«u<)ia lifeuauae of ."^iBrppresentations. It is conceded tliat 
BManey paid on «&lstske of faet can be recovered back in sa»« case* 
at law and tnat false warranty ie a good defense at law to a Buit 
upon an insurance policy. Counsel for tlaintiff relies in part 
upon the cases of juiutual l if e Inauranos Co. of T?ew York v. Wager , 
27 Barb, S. Y, 354; sjiaith v, 01 en * s ^all s l nsur»no» Co ., 62 ri, Y. 
85, There can be no doubt that these oases and ether oases cited 
«md queted from by counsel in eosie measure support their contention.' 

in "Word* ft»<l khr&99M JudlcXully D«fined," vol. d, 

P, <'.9,0&4« under 'Jfrnud** It Is SRld thnt: 

*|ftMi «««• trnnoaetloa cannot lt>6 c^i^Hraet^erixcd «« n w&r> 
ranty nnd a fraud at th» »&£&>« ti^ae, A *w«irranty* x-«i»t« on 
ccntrsi^ot, while 'fraud* or 'frauaulent r«yre»«tntatlon»» tiftT* 
no ffl«ai<mt of contract In tiifm," 

Vo arc not at all oortaln that this diotinetlea is 
eith«r logical or ih«t It r«»tt upon any roaeonable prinolpXe, 
It is not at all difficult to oone«lT« of ont«a yhmrm a )»roa«h 
of warranty way awount to a groao fraud nnd the truth of uiia 
obsti^ntion EBay b(» wall llluetratod hy ref«r«noe to the large 
Tolume of lltltrntion involving riglit* <slj»l»od under InaurAnee 
policit>«. A w»rranty, »p<?iclf Ically aa »woa# aay b» h«ld under 
the l«w to have certaln-exclusive cfeRrwoteriotioa wiiieii vould 
authorise »uct. of the reasoning »nd langut>f;e found in the eases 
eited by oouaael for plaintiff. ?i;i» is particularly so in the 
ease of i etrcjoliban Life itiQ, cc, v. ]i»r£er, 17 Fed. cases. 
Circuit imd Matriet Courts, Ko. »dca, wh^r«in it ■«»» held tlaat 
reason and auUiorlty supported the claim that insurance ooiBj^niea 
arns precluded fro« ettting up warranties of which they taigjat hava 
availed tiieani^lvm in their resiet^noe to payment of olaima 
arising under contracts of Inewrenee. The court in that oaaa 
held that the evidence ehowed that alleged ff^lse representations 
h»d not been proven and i^ is said "to constitute such fraud 
the falsity of thf answer is not sufficient in itself; it must 
be corablned t»ith the guilty kn©t<^ edj^e of itii fal»ity.« The de- 
fendant ma required in the present csaff to allege and prove 
frnud on the part of the insured nn^% it cannot rnly in its clai» 
of set-off upon mere breaches of warranties which in th«ir n^^ture 
did not cM&ount to fraud, tany of *.he authoritias to *rhlch our at« 
tention has been oalled are oases ^«fhere insurance coiaparlea hava 

defended aotlonn broutTht on polieies an tka ground tiamt iaft6«ri»l 

ulsr«(res«ntatlena wiiloii ar&ouiiitttd to )>r«aohe« of wftrrsntics ««rtt 

Bade by inourad or by tlioae for vm^ao conduct n« wne ulxHrg«Rbl«, 

7h<»»e nutneritlft* do not aid ua greatly in iiet»najlDin|{ th« ques<- 

tlon und«r oonsldaration l}«r«. iAdlatak v, f^oyitl ji<!>iiJ:iborB of 

AtPftrioa , 192 111, App. 72; ik-.utu»l . l.ife Xnfturanco Qp . v. ililtoo - 

Qrern . 241 U, 3, 613, Hera the intvirer i» th« olalwant sind it 

brinji^a it» action on th« theory that th© mi r«? r»B«ntfttioni mada 

war* of such oh« met 'j'T ttowt a fraud was impo«ad upon it. Thtt 

weight of authority le to the «ff4?et that ^h«r« the insurer hat 

paid moniaa olal»#d to be due under the jolicy, it cannot reoorar 

back th«> auart 00 paid by alleging and provinit falaa aaawera that 

aierely ancunted to breachea of uarranty, 

^" ^<fttiot»a l Life ln»uranoe ££. v. hif^jRti, ftS K, Y, 144 

it wao held that the tiaie for inaiatinjf upon a brt^^ach of warranty 

in an original application fcr mauranoa waa ^h«n tne ol»im waa 

oade for payibcnt under the ocntrKCt; v.iiAt ciere ij^noranca of a fact 

ajEX vthich. would have ena<>led an ineurer to defend againet ao ae* 

tion upon a policy is not. ^ueh a mistake of fact as would «iable 

it to recover back noney paid thereunder; that it wduld be preatubed 

that the Inaurifr eitner knaw the f»ot or that it intended to *aiva 

such dcfonae by ToluntiirUy paying the aioney. Ir» its opinion the 

court said, however* that: 

"thia rule haa no application except in the abeenoe of fraud in 
procuring the volt icy «in'1 of fraudal ?nt rcpreas^ntations made to 
obtain tiie »eney, «vi^ich «?*•**? deaiftned to, nnd did nu-ye Ui» ef» 
feet cf prerenting in<iulry,* 

It will not be noceeaary to diacuaa the question 
•laborat^ly arrued, that a pajoaent made by alataka of fact ajay bf 
f««avarad baak, Kara we hav.» to deal with circuaatancea wtiioh in- 
ValTs a oorsideratlon of the doctrine of wairer as applied where 
insurera have paid claiaa arising under inaursnoe eontraota, M»d, 

at IntiRint^d above, thl« dootrln* la not applioable «»here a olaia 

is aiadt, by ira/ of a»t-off rr oth«rwis«, that a fraud haa baan lja» 
poaedl Ufon the insurar. 

i** <>y'^ ^. iil^Ii* '^^S ^^^» *?!?• ^^^» ^^^ court aaid: 

•Whan ona paraon ofctaina ?iih» sionay of nnother, wliioli 
It la in ©qui labia or unju»t for hxi» to hold, in^ pt^raon an tiU ad 
to it Tirtty jsnlntmin »n POtion fcr snonay had oncl r«o<«i.Tad for Ita 
recovery. It la not necas^jary tlxat tnera ahouli o« an expraat 
rroxiiiee. us th*' law leipllaa a. promise, it cartainly i« Intended 
toy the statuta that nny prostiaa to |>ay aonay, «xpr«B« or !»• 
Ili*jd, i8 a i^rcp^r aat-off,^ 

It la our 0} inlon tuat tne trial court furred In 
Mtr iking the olalm of aat-off fro« tue fllea. It aubatrmtlally 
Infotraed th* plaintiff of the nature of th« oI^Ijb railed on "by 
the def«n<iant and th^t dafe«dant intended under ita set-off to 
allege ana to prove tixsxt tkiet repraaen tationa saade by insured 
and plnintiff ^mxo falae and vera i»ade "-^itii a purpoi^a to defraud 
the defendant. It i«, of course, a!$<'dl«ss to i^ay tix^t even in 
eaaea ^hrre fiHud i» relied upon aa « beale for Jie rtfoovary 
back of money paid that no ««oh recovery can be had where It 
appenra that the pcfrty claimant uftB, at th* tim^ of ouch pay- 
a-cnti, knowl«^de* ^T by the exercla© of diligence could have ac- 
quired kno^-l edee of the fnmA., jo yal M ^ripunu v. "•dvwT-la , lo6 

III, App. asv'. 

Concerning the def«na« atteftpted tc X)p 3«% up 
«4jain«t the ciaija for future ind«Knlties, not j^aid by the in- 
surer, we think the affidavit of eierlta was sufficient either 
upon til*,- allfftgatien tnat the plaintiff isme guilty of l/renchrs 
of varrantioa, ox tiiat a fraud liad been perpetrated upon tho 
plaintiff; It \iraa error to strik« these parte of the affidavit 
of aiarits. ;aeab«ok v, KetrQi-cllten life insurBnoe co gT»":/ » ^?d 
III. 516, 

It will »4t 'fee neoessRry t« diseusn othi^r ^piestiont 
pr«a«nt«d in «rgiJ»^nt in Ut» brl«fs of oounti*!, as th« oiiu«« snuat 
be rcaaanded for n nev trim, 

Tiie Ju(l£;ment of the Viunicipa) aourt wil ] bi^ r«trf r««d 
and the enuse r<s&an<i9d lo Utat. uourt for a nttw tri&l. 

ur, fr»8lrillng Juatice teOviuraXy ojeoiraiy ccnourrlng, 
X oonour in th« judjipnont of th« court but not 
In that part of th« opinion holding tlaat defen^icint ia entitled 
tc claitt a set-off. 

152 - 250^4 

kARY J. YXlxm, A<toinfatr«trlx /)#1flT A ^^R 

of isat»t« of Charloi T, Killen, / i A/ X vr X*-lx« VJ ^ W 

d«0(m»ed, \ 

\ naintiff, / ) uifti)i. mwu sunaaoH 


▼». \ / ) count 0? COOK CCUHTY. 

K, KD«'HTO» fAUCS/jlxwcutor of |li# i 

l«*t -vill and t»8t;«Rent of J, ^1 sen ] 

!>ftf«n<lftnt-> Alltel last, / 
»Dd \ / 

CKAUTtCBY Dr#EY, Int«»rjae«(J«i5*; 



Charles T, Kilitin fiX^d a bill of Intoriploador by 
wtiicia he sought to have a Judicial detexsElnation of Wie o^nersh^ 
of a fund of '^dXiji) whlou he held as ouatcdian, J, Helaon Vaneo 
and Chauncey ijevoy eaoh anaworod the bill* in which ani»w«ro e^ob 
aaa^rted owneroi'iif to the fund and also to aovon eharea in an un- 
Inocrrorated ayndioate which owned a valusble tract of i»ni in 
Chioago. A part of this Innd hi»d been sold by the ayndioate and 
the liaioO fund ie the diatributlve si^re held by rillea for whom* 
•oever .r.iiy be i\cfl<\ to b'' th« o^jner ©f the aorer 9h».r«a, the aggre- 
gate valut of »hich» aoccrdlng to V^noe, ia |37,&oc. 

Charlea i , tiewey, futher of Chauncey tJewey, and ,T, 
nelson Vance, were orij^inally o m*re of most ef th* land ajrndleato 
aherea. Charlea I, 'newoy waa ala<:» orlfcin^lly the principal evmer 
of the earital stock cf two corponktiona vhich owned largo traota 
of land in Kansas in ;»ikioh Vance also held certain stock. Ciiauncey 
&««ey after the deatii of his father, Charles i. Dewey, in Banuary, 
1904, purauftsed Vance*a interest in the Kfinaas corpcrationa. and ha, 
Chauncey Bewey, insists that as a part of the transaction Vance sold 
to hiai the scron syndicate shares. Vanee testified that he did not 
aell the aewen ■■»»»«»■»#♦«»♦» <»no«— *- ^i.- - - -- 

tr«ns«otloa lt)«tw««R the piiirti«a ineludad only tb<» int«r99t Vnnttfi 
held JLn th« Ka»«*« oorp« rations. 

A d«or»« wan ont*red in faTor of Ciiauncey i)«wey and 
thf executor of tiie "vili of j, HeXaon v'anco, de««aaed, brings 
Uj;e ease here by appcsal for r«Ti(»«. 

The two prinoipaX wiin«o»«» «ho testif Jied in tr^e oawit 
wcro Vanea en the ona 8i4a mn4 Clutuncay .^away on the other. ?h«y 
dlr«otly oontradiot eaoh ethar ao to tidiat «aa inoXuded in th« 
transaction t«i:ioh aa»itt«dly by both partiea invcXved a tranafor 
of 200 fihar»t in tho c. I. l>away Coiupany and 5oo nlmrt* In l>e«ay 
I^nd h Cattla Co., th«! Kansao oorj^orationB. 

The oasa haa bean aloborateXy «rgued by ccunsoX for 
both parties* end th« avidano* in the record i» so voluetinoue that 
we are abXe in thie opinion to refer only t© w»hPt we regard ae 
oontroHinjs teetiisony and fnete in the ease. 

Chart ee i", J)e*«y, the father of Chauncey lewey, and 
J. reiBon Vanoa were priav to the year 1904 intmateXy aseociated 
in different larige enterprieee; they -a^rm both sen of eub.itnntial 
wealth. ?he Kaneae corvarationa^ origi.»aXXy org».ni2ed to raise 
ana eell oat tie* were later engaf<:ed in the buaint&aa of eellini^ t,h9 
land acquired for that purpoee. The par value of the stock in 
thee« oorporationa whloh was ecld by Vanea to Chauncey Dewey wae 
$60,000. Vance's toetiwony i» that the etoek wae eold to l^ewey 
at tliie fi<$ure, »awey'» pceition ie tiiot he boueh^ the etoek in 
one coBipany at BOfi and in the other at SOjtf en the dolJ«r» and that 
the eeren syndicate shares were also included in the transaction. 

Without ett*N»ptin« to analyse the eTldence, ve think 
it felrly shews that Uie ctocir in the IJewey Land & Cattle Cocs?«iny» 
ont^ of the Kanaaa corporations, wee worth at the tt»" of the trans- 
action not less timn its par Talue, $»0,0f>0j and thia is th« prica 
Vance paid t)ewey'8 father for the stock. The evidence is aoawehat 

T«cu« »• to Uift value of th« stools in tn« otn«r KaoMts oorperatien. 

but ao far a» «• ar* aBle tc det«rsila« th* natter frois th« record, 
tixe ptir Talu« pric« at vritleh Vnnce aayt It ims sold to l>«««y was 
net ujr)ri>a«o»abT«. Thtt «Ti4ttnoa 41»cJioti«» tliAt th« »took in t,h« 
KAneas oorperatient waa vorth at least |^&c*or'0 at t,h# viae of t^i« 
tranaaction* and w)&il« thera 1* soes*^ oontradiction in Ui« evi- 
dence it. 18 alac clear th»t th«? seven land syndicate ahftres w«r« 
^arell worth, at thf^ tlm?, tha mm of nt 1 j>nst $20«OOC> and tiiia 
is the }>rlc« at which rillaK and TMiirsy sold feh« aevini afcRres to 
Vanee at ths vrry tlwe whan Tieway Insists the aymticat* sharaa 
««r4» 'srerth laueh less. 

Charles r. t)air«y died testata January 1&» 1904. 
Ctiarles T. Kill an and Chaunooy pewsy wer« appo «ntad sxscutors by 
th« will, and tuay <tuallfi«d as such. ?iri« will szade certain pro- 
visions for deceased* s wiaow and dauif^tsar, after wuiok killien and 
Chaunoey iHiwey wara i>e<|uaatliad all tJbe residua of i,nt» estiite. 
wbiob was lat^e. Citiauncey D«w«y later ae^uired by purclxase and 
oth«rwiB« eertain Interests la the estate #:i.iou gavtt JrtiM an owiier- 
ship of Jibout ts«ro-third8 of the personal property thereof. J rlor 
to his death Charles l . Dewey had liorrowa4 $8(^,000 from V»nae and 
to seoura the psyMont of this loan he delivered to v^noe his 
promissory note for the" amount due April 4. 1*05, and itlso deliv- 
ered to hin AS ool lateral oeoitrity «>lewan tsharea in the Chieaisa 
land syndicate. In woveasber, 1905, the executors by letter of- 
fered Vanoe five of the elffven aUsrea in j>ay»«itTit of the note. 
Vsnce xefu»ed tiiiis offer and on lovesiber 29, 190&, Chaunoey 
Dawey wrote hia offering sevan of the shares in j^ayaent of the 
note. nls letter was not answered and amunoey Beway thereupon 
visited \ranoe at Maeeling, s, va, Ghauiicry ueway for aosie titta 
before ijiis visit to Aheellnc; had been aoqulriai; by parohaae fron 
different persons atook in the Kansas corporatione in addition 

to th« Interest wiilch h« obtained th«r«iB und«r rJLn fRtii«r»i will. 

A» a r«8ult of the oonfsr*nc#« between Chi».uno«y Ti^wvy 

»nd Vnnc* at Wht«21n£^, Vano« nijtroed to acc«pt th« off*>^r of tha 

aeven 8ynclic*»t« ahnrea in full payifaent of tha t80, f C note. 1'ha 

evi^anoa disoloaaa a Hiurp ocnflict )>etiir«»n Uia pnrtlee tc tne autt 

»s to th* value of ttiasa tkaraa. In hla latter ta Vanea in '<>rhieh 

Uie seven shmraa «ara offtsrad in payment of the note chaunoay 

wcway wrate: 

*Txila aa you will aec la figuring eao^^ sunra wortli 
only about ^3, etc. '?» botx; feel that thi^' ia « 
sacrifica prloa.'* 

Th«^ interviffw at healing occurred about January lot, 
1916, Th<» avidanca ahowa tiist i»b.ile in Dieeling Oliaancay D«way 
aR(:«^«d in two dletinct tranaaetiona -eiitii Vanoe; in 2n«, aa execu- 
tor, ha procured the aece; tanoa by Vance of the »®v«n syndicate 
ftharea proposition* nnd in the othi»r in hia individual interest he 
save noteo for $b(\000 payRbl" in ti.raa inataJlmiiisnta for the deliv- 
ery to hia, aa eenoedad by Vanoe and hi*8alf , of th# «hftr«8 In the 
Knnsaa ccipo rati one, ^^ther theo*? noteo vf«re r^lao ftiven in pa^mttik 
for an ^^reersemt by Vanoe to deliver 8#ven yhnres of th<* svndieate 
stock to Dewey is the crucial question in the oaaa. with referanea 
to the Kansaa ocr{ oration titook it 1 ^ rt^restd tiiat it ^ma to be 
held by Vance aa ool lateral security for the paywant of the *60#000 
notes, new oori orate stook oertifioatea delivered to i>«wey wera 
deposited by him with Vance as security for the payB8;«mt of the 
notes witiiln two weeka after this ai^raetBant «ra8 watered into, 

on hia return to Chicago fro* Vfheeling on January I, 
1906, :>ewey wrote Vanaa that he h»d aubditt^^d to Kill an, his cc« 
executor, Vwnce'a acceptane*? of the proposition of the seven shares 
in pay.T.rnt of the note. On ?ebru»ry 5, l»t;fi, both executors wrote 
to Vance as foil owe; 

"Cenc^rnlnis the sale to you of s«v«n oertiflGAte* 
«f one siiftre each of the VRne« K S'}ew«y Jtmd ^- inveBtsieBt Co. at 

#2(:,v.H.!v, in psiTiaent of th« note fcr th« uume aieaount; wfeicii you 
hjdld et^ninat the entate, «ould »ay tiiat «re b^ave dooid«d to Ac- 
cept your ^ropooition, STid you m&y y I ease oanoel the notfe and 
return the sasie to u», retaining.': In full jiayuje-nt cf sasac sctren 
c^rtlf iOifit«a of cne share ^aoh*** ete, 

it le evident thftt the trnnetiction cc«)cM»rnlafi the 
seven aynaic«>te »L«ree given in ^ay&fent cf the note v/aa not 
formslly closed by »il ttoe partiea thereto until at least the 
date cf this latttr letter. »nu timx. thiK ie «o in Turtue/- e-vi* 
dtiZiu&d by as agr««uent dated «>anuHry 51, l9C'6f wuici^ «-»!» entered 
into by Allien and Chauncey !i«vey under tjue terras of wnloh eaoh 
becase bound to endeayor to obtain vh« 6cn&er,\. of uthera int<*r«sted 
in the estate to the arran«;i»«nt with Vwnce* or* failing in that, 
to hiave tl'i«i Kfttter su^siitted to the irobwte court, on i?<isbruary 7, 
1906, Vanoe sent the oana«lI«>d note nnd the four eh«re8 which re- 
mained In hl« pos8<^aaion to the eredit of tne e©t»t* tc the execu- 
tora» .vho on February 9, 1»C6, «o :nowl«df;ed receipt of the can- 
oelle'd note anri th«' four aharea. 

yroM our «xaj»ln«tlon of the record vfe urt? convinced 
th**t tii«? Jhif/>.t of tha evidence i» decidedly in favor of the con- 
tention of RtF>ll»nt. Vnnoe did sot btooaa t;he o^ner of tii*» suvea 
Mhcirea until ji>ebru»ry 7, lHoe, aituough .oerrey'a poeition is that 
he |jurtjha»ed th«M from Vance about the first day of January of tnat 
year. Vaace'a aoce}}taaa« of the otter to raoaive the aeven shares 
In payment of tha $ZO,OijO note !«aa not acoepted by Btreey and hia 

o-executcr until February 6, 19(^6, Ellltsn, Hemey'* oc-execator» 
teatificsd thPt Dewey had never infomed hi« at imy tiae or in «*ny 
connection that he, i^ewey, had b«oa»« the owner of the ^i«van syn- 

iic»l*t oharoa, pewey did Inform the ?/itntse of hia jjurchaae fro» 
Vance cf the eharea in the rs^naut corporations, further t^^etify- 
in^ F ill en said: 

*Troei tne tiw«* I asde tiie tranaaetlon a« executor 
by which Jr. Vanoa purohaaed these aeven aharea I n*;v«r heard 
iinytning: of any tranwf er of any kind by LXm of any of t.heoe 


arren alaarea, until the 06rtiflcat«« w«r« brougbt in to olo»« 
up the trude,* 

Kill en, us ••or«t«ir.y. hft4 oh«rg« of t]u« land ayndi- 
oat« ixjoks both b«for« «nd »ft«r Ch»rl«« l . |>e»«y*« di«»tu, Thl» 
eourpany wns not Incorporatrd and rill en t««tlfied tbut »u'b8««(U(»nt 
to th« a11pf?«i»d ftnlm of th« srven syndionte ahntea to Chsunctfy 
©«w«y hff IcTiedi thr«« aavttssco^nta afainttt tii® »«v«n jjhf>r«« for tis« 
payiBcnt cf taxeo and other ohar^es; th<»»« naawas's^ssntB ?(ere paid 
by Veinoe, notwithstanding the fact tiiHt the oertifioatee for the 
shares were then An roeaeesion of Chaunoey Dewey, Dewey and 
Killea oooupied the e«ne office* and were i»tiaat«ly associated 
in financial and corporate affairs ana in the estate of Charles i« 
Dewey* deceased* At the tisie tiiese &»sess&^«nts were levied V^nce 
f>ppeared on the land syndicate books as o'^ner cf the mvtin si^area 
and they stood in his naaie thereon during the years X9u6» 19c7 and 
l»ce. Chiitincey Tjewcy took 2^ shar«» under Uie will of hi* father 
and h<? nlso aonulred l^ shares fro« Killen; these shares stood on 
the hocks in the nnM<ii of Chaunc* Bewey, Killsn testified that 
lie h»d no knowledge of Chauneey Dewey's alleged ownership of the 
■eYtn shares until the year 1911 ^hen the oloaing of a sale of 
lOi aoree of land owned bv the syndicate rendered it necessary to 
S^cuire poesession cf all the outstanding certificates. 

it is significant also thut the tranaactlon concern- 
in« the sale of the stock in the Kanoas corporationa, as also the 
detail a of tno aale by the exeowtors oi the »ev«pj shares t© Vane«« 
•re definitely shown by the oorre«>>onii«no6 o£ the parti «s and by 
1»ook entries jaade by Vance; but no contest poraneous writing was aft»4« 
by i)ewey either in oorresrondence, by book entries or ctherwlss 
th«t corroborates in the oU*iitest degree his a«»8#rtien that ha 
rarohased the asyen shares fro» Vance on January I. 1916, at the 
time he. iiewoy, acquired the ocrporate stock, newey testified 

ttat thr9« y«»T» after tli« alleged eale ©f the «ev«n aynxUoAte 

ahnree he jcaule on entigr on the bacK of an envoi cpe ehc^lng feif 

pd»0ffl8«ior) of Ui8 certificatea. Vnnoe IsjcaAlotely aficr tlie 

trwjseactlon &Mde book «atrie« wtiiofe abow only the aale of tjae 

corromte 8toek to I>tftr<^ for $50, ceo, Tiaeae. entriee, Jtade in 

V»T)ce'R own /-andwritini;, a pKo teigra vli-ie copr o^ f^iiltdi »p]«j»rs in 

the R.bstrfictsai, urer*" &9 follows; 

"Jwrniary 1st; 19c€ 

Odd Chftuficey 2nf.' shares c 1 Dew«y C>", par 2v>000 

♦' ' 300 •* i- Dewey Ijwid .!;. c.*ai.tle Co.* 30«OuO 


Be Bettled for Uioae isiwrcs fe» foil owe witii oetcis 

Two years note at 5^ $15«C^C0 

rhree *"♦••• 17 00-0 

j'our ** u » m le OOP i^COOO 

Tftby 5 Toc-k 7 ahaxee for C, i.Deweys note of ^iL^vvO 

Apl /M infld 10 1 ^seessisent on «!7 sUtiree 13S0 


Apl 9 » l/2€ * « 678 


Apl * 1/4 " • 3»7 50 

Have eince p«tfi taxee* threufrh Kill <?n,* 

V«ne« «m© the owaer ©f 20 »>'nAlc«te ehuree before he 

purehpsrd the as^ven aiiaree fy©» the ^xecutora, *}o refsrence le 

ande in theee eni.rie« to a a&le of th« seven »n»ree te Dewey, TiMi 

letter written by Tiewey to Vance on l^ebriiary 7, 1906, e^eake »f 

the transfer of the eeven eharee by the execute re to V«*noe, but 

aothlnH is euicl therein ccncerniB£ th?; alleged transfer of the 

•h»ree by v»«ce to Dewey. A transfer of i-h6 corporate certifi- 

•ates wft» made by Vance to l^ewey, but no eiaeilar tranafer w«» 

■ade of thf: aevMi »yn4io»ite certificates. 

^ CertaiM ailiaieeiona aaarte by Dewey after the »lle«ed 

transaction cocarred oan be uncJeratood only en the theory thut he 

pilid par T«lat for the oorporat* atook (ind thnt tiiA syndionte 

ahftrea ««r« uot inoludea Jin the transaotion. 

In ««Xing for an •xte^ision cf iij»« to pny tJkie notes 

delivered In payi^eat for the eoriornt* stook* :Mwigr «rot« Vs^nca 

on j^aroii <i&» 19oc<> in part »a fcllovs: 

*Thi« faot. and the on«» abov« atatad, and tj:i« addi* 
tlenal ona that I paid ycuvione .iiundred oenta on the dcUar, 
whan I bougiit i-.r, Klllen's for • igi^^ty, Hfnd »lac pfeid you par 
for your Innd and cat. la ocfiipany atooJc* wtiioh nevar has, and 
probubly will never pay out «s sjuoh, aJaould keep you frcm be- 

Vanoa*a ainoarlty in the aunt tar* va tiUnk. in evi- 
denced by the faot thnt ha ccntinued to pay asaaaeiibenta afiioiuitiag 
to eonsiderabla aune en the neittn eyndicate eharea* liotiee of 
th^aa aaeeatrtenta were aent by Killim to th« exeoutora of the ee* 
tate aa well a« to Vanee nnd th^ estate aas«;et»«Tita were paid by 
fliieeka aif^ed by ChauReey Dewey, 

The ivi dense i^atlefaotcrily eatabliahaa that Dawaj 
get poaseeeion of the eert&ricatea of Ui^ seven tuur^a of the 
•yndioattt etook in the aianner following: Ci^uncry newey after 
aoBia axteneiona of tiae finally eaa able en ^suttuary 9» IdOi), by 
tba traaafer of telephone bcnda« lauds, &tc.* to Aoet and pay 
nates dallverad by hia %e Yanea. Xt «aa at tuia tiete that 
&avay olaiMed to have aiada h a> ?mw> randuss on the back of an en- 
velope concerning his poaseesion of the oertif ioafces of the 
•even eharea. In 1911 \Thil« title wae being mede t© m^ l«nd out 
ef the sale of v.ioh th* fund in eontroveray here arose, Dewey 
for the first ttsie produced and oleijaed ownership ef the seven 
•ertifioates. He testified that the certificates were delivered 
to hia ifidben the payments were saade to ¥$»n«e in January, 19C9, to- 
Csther with the oanonled notes and the corporate etook ccrtifi- 
aates, all of wiiloh had been oeld by Vanoa aa collateral. These 
papers were brought in a large envelope froa Wheeling by Varsoa'i 



•0n and delivftred to I$«««y in ChicKgo, V«ino«» «»• ft»k«d on the 
witn«!89 Btftnd ito«th<»r >«• h»d oonwoieusly, d«l ib<»rnt«l3r or intAn- 
tif>n«lly B«nt the •«ir«n o«rttfio»t«» t© mt, T»«w»y at all, nnd h« 
ttn&««r«d, "I did not, I did not knew they oatt« heir«, I n«TtMr 
kis«w tii#y wf h^v until t got a notioo trem ^t. Kill en three 
y««r» aft<:rw«rde. v«inee t«etified that he did not now in what 
auRnner I>«w«y got poaeeeaion of the oertifiosntee. 

As stated* the eviUenoe in the record is very volunin- 
eae. we have examined this «<vid«nc«! oarei'uXIy and we are oon« 
Tinced* as stated, that the decided weight of the evidenoe is 
a^sinst the oontention of Chaunoey ii«wey. ordlnnrily where <jucs* 
ticns of faot srieing in ohanoery suits hare been deterjtained hy * 
»aster in ohanoery and his report has bean conf iriued by the 
ehancellor a oourt of reviaw will not interfere with his oonolu* 
sions unless error therein is uamistflikmbly shown; but in the 
liresent ease neither the ausster who rf^po^r ed conclusions on the 
srrl ence, nor the ehanoellor lAni oonfiTm«d his report, had an op- 
portunity to see the two prineipal witn«!sses ^^o teatified; their 
testimony «as taken before a raaster, who subsequently tms elected 
te the bench, and the master to whoa the hearing waa rexaoved 
merely examined a stenographic r«) ort of the te»timony of these 
witnesses, xt is not th«refar« a case «diere the naster who rep^orted 
ms eonclusions or the ohaiieeller had an opi^^ortimity to see and hear 
the prinoipal witnesses. 

*h<?n consideration is given to tht? exrress ad&is«ion» 
•f Bewsiy thet he purchased the coryorate stock for it© r^*** vfelue; 
ta hie failure to Asake any memoranda at or about th«» ti»e of his 
•ll«iced purchase of th« sewea syndioate shares by corresFondsnoe, 
«r otherwise, or to refer to his ownershtr theraof in any «anner 
ta Kill en, whose business it was to keep a record of such trans- 
fers; to hla fRiJure to pay asseeaflsents on th 9« shnros, notwith- 


atAndlos tJa« tuQt Ui*t he did pay ••tt«»SA.«nt« en ot^«r sliarea is 

mliloh h« wm» inter«sted. It mkat b« nelik tiiat error was oommittcA 

in ent«»r4nfi; a d«or«e in hia fAvor. '/cuio<? w«a «^(kiittedly « umn 

of lArge l)uain«t« (?xp0ri(»nG«: h^ sBde 0Ar«^ful «niry in his books 

of Recount of eT^ry •aaimtiiil fnot eoi3io«ming th« fi£r««tt.>cnt» 

mad* ifiU% Deway an jAnuary 1* 19(6, Theao oonte.»^oraneouB en- 

tricB corroborate Vance** theory of the tr»nafteti&n in every 

pArtioaklaj*; they not only ehowed that the stock in the rensAS 

oerporetions w»e eold t© Bewey for fSc,oor, but they al»o di»« 

closed th« eanoellation of the |:3o,CK>0 note far the aeven ahares 

which were delivered by the executors to yanoe and the payment 

of assesBn«nts ti^eireon by Vanoe during the ytsmt^ that followed 

their delivery to hta, 

The decree of the ;!iuperior court will therefore be 
and tlie cause ret&anded 
reTersed^wxtn directions to enter a decree in favor of U, 

£;dgerton Vance, executor of the will of J, Kelaon Vance, de» 


ms^mnm> mxi um-mwrn 

IflTH DlRKCTlOira. 

X6& - 25028 

J. I;. iJHAilHC;, \ \ 

A, iiKKi-lAHT. 

or CHI€M0, 

^ Tr 

Jplaintlff brougiit suit against defendant to reooirer 
dMChftie^ee for nn nil titled failur* en th« part of defendant to deliver 
eertain periionR) property in oonforwity with the teraa of th« In- 
strument following: 

•CMeai^o. April 20, 1918. 
l>oc(?lv«d of J, P. Shapiro Fifty dollars (#»•". 0'), b-ping 
deycsit en fifty bcrrel a Kentucky «»hi*key, 1916 inaj'^o- 
tlcn, ) rice of »ale to toe *2,2«!!-l/2 per jrcsf gallon in 
tend, lees etorage nnd state anr] county taxes. Balance to 
b^ paid upon dellTery of «rarahou«e receipt*, cr dei^oiiit to 
be forfeited. 

Aocepted, J. H. 'ihapire. A. Breliant." 

Id an affidavit of merita filed by the defendant the 
def eneee maxd^ «ere that the plaintiff agreed to jmy the balanee 
of the purciiaee jaouey at the Cottage drove Bank wh«re the certlfi> 
eates were ready for delivery; that on Bonday, April £<i, Itiili}, the 
bank racf^ived the oertifieates and tliiat plaintiff failed to i&ake 
payment of the balance due thereon; that he aeked for tltitc until 
VedneaSay in which to procure sufficient ^on»y to pay the balance 
due under the contract. 

ffvidence introduced on the trial tended to prove that 
defendant en April iio, 1918, poaeeesed a large nuttber of ahlakey 
eertificBtee, ond that he eold »0 bnrr<*l.» of wiiliskoy, rerreeented 
by certain of these oertifieates, to the jvlaintiff ae sUowt, by 
the in8trt)£ient above. 

The J laintiff received from defendant a deposit of 
$60 OB the sale, the "balance to be paid ui>en deliv(?ry of ware- 

iiou(?e i*«celpt«4i or d^poalt to toe forf^itwd," The te«ttj»ony ef th« 
d«fftnaant is to th« effect th»t tiie wni»k«y certifiofttea '•iiicla iit 
sold to thtt plaiBtiff vi^re to b« sent froM Ciaolnn^ti to defendant 
not ifeter tinuo ;iAturdAy or fconday following April ko, 1918; tUat 
the defendant infor«ied plaintiff tisjit the oertifiuatee were to oomt 
to ther Cottage Grove Avenue ^ank. the memorandiua of agreeu>ent is 
tfilfjit »a to the tiae and ploee for the execution of the agree* 
jscenty end were th-^re no proof to the contrary the iireeumptlon ie 
that dellrery waa to be sade within a raaaonable tiae after the 
renking of the contraot. 

The ease waa tried hy the /court without a Jjury and 
Jud&jHsent ima entered in faTor of the ilcfendant. whether this 
Judijisent ia tc he reverted depwniia ai toilet her upon the evidenea 
which wwa intrcduoed on the trl«l. In the ^t^aanGts of a direct 
contradiction in the evidence as to what pl&oe arid i>im*i were 
agreed upon fcr the delivery of the certif ioiit&e, th« p-rohleai of 
detersiining the truth of the laatter rested, under ui« ^videnoe, 
upon ti^e trial Judge, m readily aauent to ihe prinoii>le relied 
upon by pXuintiff that where the tiittt of delivery of gocde re- 
Ciuired under the ter^e of a contract ia uot fixed therein, the 
tiice for delivery will not o« held to be of the eeeewce of th» 
contract, lii laperge r v, ^eyer, iil7 111, iJ67. An<i ac, also, if 
the contract ie silent as to tne plaee for delivery, eueh deliv- 
ery will be h«ld to be the vendor** plaoe of buaineae. II 1 « J-ev . 
Sta t., tmifcra iale£ Ac t, :^»ot . *3. 

Complaint ie Bade that the trial oourt erroneoualjr 
oonelderad certain teetheony given by defendant which tended to 
eetablieh hi» def«»neej thle teatimcny wae elicited by plaintiff •• 
oouneel under .eotion 3S of the jfunicipal Court Act, The teeti- 
mony cf the witneae upon thle eaeafri nation b "Scarce proper for the 

oonsideratlcn of the trial Judge, even though it waa favorable 

to the »itne»*« altiidUf^ th« pi it 1b tiff vmB not concluded by th« 

t««timony and hud a l«[^(i]i rif^it to rebut it, XubstSLHtifOJy tte 

Muae siriuwjce wa« broufiht out rn thr <li.rfiOt «xaKArifttlcn!i <of d«» 

f«noftnt by Ms counsel . D«ff«ndnnt te«tifi»<i as follcwei 

"I tcXd hias (p)r>?intiff } I mm petting mllnlir^ from 
ClnolnnAtl; th»t I hftd boug it ac many to»rrf»!«; thot I J-iad 
toe 33uoi on •rtnd and w»t8 ^fill inj^ tc »«11 P.% a-X/iJ oenta 
profit; that hn oouXd hR'fw th« 'vhlakey on coir^itictj that he 

i?ct a ci:fi*cic on slsposlt by Vonrt*y B^crriin^ anci Wmt t e.«st 
i»a»« thfi check bv to^nday ixiifnUm «.» accn «if» i ottilovi for 

V« tuink thltt t«»ti!£;ony was adsiis^iblo in tE»t it 
did liot v-fiMtid tc very or modify th* t«*r.'P» of th* vrittec con- 
tz>H«t; a ualy »9TT0d to juake definite i!»nd .;}«rtain wM<?ir«in th« 
oontraot i>fttt iwUef itiite tur,d unaeriHln^ ?>'niott 6rgci.a^ ii^iSii 
U'Mihino. ';.o_, V, lock»ocdj_ Xlo III, App, 367. 

Th« oTideno* ^ffc^r^A by lh« defendmrit t«ndiB to 
Show th»t ci fUr>«et dcouuid for payscmt "»«■ eiti(<!itipt<»d tc b« fi»f>d« 
OB Londay morninp ^y t«l«»rhon« Rt pUnlntlff *« uaneil plao« of 
bu»ineeis, r,»f<»nd«nt tunA plaintiff did hn^e • t«I«p:-ono oon-rer- 
•ation about lour e*clGok in tii* Aft«Tnoon of aendny, during 
whicn, AcacT^iaf, te kit own tofftmeny* plaintiff »»id h« 
•would co»« down with m. e«rtlfl«<l cwek." H« lid not Ixave tho 
check Rt t ie time snd h« knew th»t hs oould not procure a 
<^«ck before tk» following day, S© far a» the? avldeKCO ohows, 
hi« first Mtt<mpt to oottply wtUi the t«»rt>« of iiia contract was 
Mide on ':^«!tdne>i»day ttornini? foIlOHing the ^aturcUty wh«n th^ ccn** 
trftot w«« fmtered inta, j^nd if defendant* 8 v«*r«ion of Ui«* ccn- 
trnot bf! the correct one, tamn tiiie atteaq)ted |;>erfora}«nce enxe 
too l«te, 

The eyidenoe heard upon the trial ^nn contradictory 
ae to <9hat the parties had in fei,ct agreed upon as to tne tiote and 
plitoe of dttlivery and as to eireunstancee attending preceaing 
the breach of the eentraot. in thie etote of the record wc are 

unMe to dl.turt the flndlni? »nA ,1«dgmimt of th« tri^l court. 
Tii0 4ud#rie«t of tu* Piwioiptn ccurt 18 affiled. 

I tiei.A. 3 


"** \ I / 

\ )/ 0? COOK iiomnY, 


A g<»i?OT*ftl dwaurv9V fil«f<i to « shird «ffliwi4.«4 4«Qlftra- 

ti®n coTitfiftittic: ©f thrflKf <jeu«t« w*» sti,at.«i>iij«ti. by tii« trial «r>wrt 

and th« flnintiff «l«w;*.lnc t« Himnd by th« d«clarrttio». brings 

the cftBf t© VnJp O0«rt t« rev-'rn® tii» J'aa.KmffKit «s>»iii«»r«4 .la favor 

of th« defer.d»nt Iw th* twp«»yi<»y eourt ©f CooK <;mtnty. 

Th« first ecunt ef the i*U,yd «B«itjd«^ daciapation 

eh^Tf/f'fi that - 

*m% tirie Bpmcitil •in«%»n(;« and r«ouet»% of the 'i«feindant« 
I- Ales ,; , '/ot&Tu, ', ilv**- ... i»i1kti», vittt,»i v, loll »-n'i 
?rfl<*. c. '.■V.-,';>B '-nt .red i.KtO ft. wfiiitftn jv.y«*f<5sftnt *Hth iil«, 
» coiy fit ^aiQh Xa uitaui^^u x**.:-,, ev** iii*a *.♦.<*© & ^'^ri Lt^rt.i^T, 
xm6tir Mift by «iiicte U*«? aaltt t^wrtifts ta4i;jr««?> to orgnftiss* » 

jtnown 98 J?e*? iroouft* K«;jriHliafe Go»up»ny. «Hii thi» a»id ^^vd^J|Jll 
H, KesenbaiWi, d«i &*» .**•»! iiiafeiri, Ufci^.w ic audtfcr-b^i for tBtx 
fhou»i»ne! '^•^IXaffft \«ortii of t«i« Oftiital stock of aaiA ctirjof*- 
tiofi 'jv-ner, cir|.:;«wvi»ed ^-id iut^uhi: &,^xi<:'^-d i>c t^in^ .,a»J turn ov»» 
his ah?*r« of tii($ »ds«t« ia » p=ttrtf$ea?»*ilp «xi»ting betwuwn tia« 

li^«i»«8b«us» to Wie «M»JL^ rJ»w ir<»ee«» K»fttti»|S u<»Kj«my. -.viiich 

•fsi'i jjHKr* w»« tc intrluiie a rar»ul« t&d BecJret j,r©cejtf ior ft 
«j«r« eco?*ofi»ioii3. ««<i ».iiTBrit»ij«©\i» 3a«MaufAature of .a:ttro»«iie, 
f5<ss'llr««, naptiif?., iuLjcAoittiag oii*, fcStt oils «r.<i i-i-T ilt-;r 
jrc><!uet» wbieh he olRiM«4 to h«ir« in^«?ntcd «n5d v^tt t;e%9<!t .* 

1% W9k9 furtli«r iai«ii«d in iht» oount of tii« d«»ol*r«- 

ticm th<«t* 

"••id d«Hsr«t prco€i»» iw* wurriRntwd by »fti<l 'Wf«n4ftnt, tmdclj>fe 

?-, rfOiii€?r,iv.:^w*:, ^c i,'i u pKceai* uf greet vrilue ?*r<S thot nr.ld 
procPBe woxild greatly l«»a«n Ui« ©o»t ©f «iMiufHCtur« of jgwac- 
Jiue, r.:iAj^:AAi *.iiU ciiB wr^a :„L.««,v it >k^-!J '^^ns'^iS l>y ;*^i«t /l«f«ndnni 
•ml tnat «ald ^U«« J, Vot»v«# clivwf »♦ fittft* Victor ^. 
i<iil fc.«iw rr*5«i c, A,(iiM»«, vrttoliy rely,l«« u^^on U»« aaid warr^ttty 
«tt tc» )»ai4 proo«a» and UiK j^roal0«9 of ttAld aefemtlmit^ entfvX-ftd 
into tAia QontTAct; and ti.e piaiatiff aTroarn u-i«l, a« «iooor4tt«H}9 

^Ith tti« iigr««»<m% h«X'«tcfor« menticnpd, %h{tre IMMI oviMRiMMl 
%h<sf ^«w iroQ«8a t^dfinlag co^p«.»y undftr th«i) le^wt •£ %h« StAfcii 
•f Illin«i»# whioh #e«p«jaj 1» j;l«ifjtlff ii#!r«in, »n<i thut 8»ld 
plaintiff^ tiGntiiHing in »sid pr«isi8« iindi und«rtAi:ia(t, «n<l r«ly* 
Ing on th* w»nrt»ntie« of the «»ld d.ef«ndftnt, af t*rwftr<!l8« on ©r 
«iil»©ut, t«sr---*it., tiie fourtii day of .!U»guat» iyX6, n-dtjplnjd and 
rRtlflad tftld Bgrvtieiont n<*r«in x-^JTsrrca to, nnd in oen«id«ifii» 
tlen «f th« pro«i»«« »ad under %ti/;ittg» of deftnclAnt* ii»i»atd t« 
ixla »t<^ck in ft«id coaip«ny to the y»lu« Of |^lc:,CtO; yftt ti.v« 
»iii{3 d«f#nd«nt, eontrivimg «tnd Intending tc d«eeiir* «*.nd defrAUd 
tti© »«ld xrlnlntlff in thii* >>«h«lf, difi nut p^rfon?; er rj\trerd 
his wRid proK*i«© *indl und^irtRJsinp; so tey hlis ?ai»rt«, «« {ifcr«aAidl« 
but Ui^^reby ornftily ^ndi 3«1>tly <a*»e*iv«?d *«ttd d^frsuded t.u« 
»«id r.t««intiff in t;4a, to-??lt, thsvt th<p *Rid »urp<>0ed aeoret 
proe«»8 'ml for-:sulf<« jLl ;5o*. ^/-^orliiff n r!«tliod nnd jn^'ans for a 
»er« eocnccilORl «ind «dv»'.iog«ov» ?s»KufRctur« of Jfofostn*. 
gaaelinw, nnpthn, lubricftttRg oils, igaa oil* a««i alrailswr 
prc;duct.«, but on ths cc!itr«ry thftJTftof, th.« iSMi4 x.^roc«88 and 
»UTto»eA uecT%% forjt;ijl&« isfens utt..»»yly ■srtJrfeiilcaB aW'-i acv«14 n©t 
))« fend «er* not siade fee op<^rat«? with gafety, prcfltlmr «tdv«iiit* 
»g# t« B«»ld rlftiBfciff i*nd w^^rir of ?to ▼«!»« i»ij«trr««"l,* 

Tiilt eownt f«rth«» cii»rg,ed thut the plnlntiff ha* 
«u«taia«d »fid 8uffar«td c^^rtnin a»i»A|sttt by roaaon of th«s alleg«4 
ttoaduot of tli« defendant. « ti^inJc thla f^trist o^uot of ths dao* 
laraiiOR s«t« out a good e«iuat of ftoiicn in a«s»utaj^'sit. 

It amy be quite true. f*a urg«d by ee«nj»«l for d«f«nd* 
ant, %:i».(; if >«« woxo p«r«iitt«d to r«ad tliift eontraot i.i would dia* 
olo««» HB » »asitt©r of fftot, that ne wesrranty had iB««n is^dtt by da* 
ftr.dant as te tiUf-- qu&Iity of tii*' jauteriel* wtoloh vero tc be »aau«> 
faaturad by t&« oorperntion uador t>j« instruction and •up^trviaion 
af tfee def«»da«t# but t£ie contraot, vhioii is merely attaob«r4 to 
the dociaratloa« is nc j>»yt th«r«cf, ftec «uit in which plaintiff 
taaka to r«*c©irar daaiagos t« «. ce-:o?ion law action and no citatiea 
af «uth©riti#« is needed in aui'-port of the jsrcpc«itio« that tfea 
ridht to rttcermr In suai* en action saust be found witiiia tbo four 
oornera of tb© daelaraticn; tJiat iaatruacnta attaefc«td th»rato a» 
eidiibits or oti^erviisa are no ^nrt Ui«^r«cf 4 

The f imt count lx» «xjr«»» t«r»a ciiAr^os a broaah of a 
warranty tmterad iato l>y tii« aofendant auvi if u**^ aetlon 1» »» ao« 
tion in aasue^pait, ao laaiotod upon by daf«i»vi«nt« t^ien tb«> count 
ia not rapu^aant to a ganeral d«»iurr«r. 

oovat usdttf octisiil^f^Vlct} hnf «ft«£<i« tc- u» td ^v (;o64 <<ri» wn p|| 

contractu ccunt. It «»t« up » «ftat3i?a«fc<i a, 4«ai-3r«'*n4y 1fcii«ir«i»» « 
Ijycateh cf tu* w?? «jf wiity wad r««uitiTi^ <J4*;A«kg«» fca ta.^ ^i^niratifl'* 

Miti<»ni •% dallc tg for «l«o«4t an,4 f«Xft« ir«i,>r«»'S4m&u<;ii.tiU4 i'4 Xa 
»«««88i»r}r %• pirciFf» B aci#tj.t«> ^j F « *« sir* i««i4.neii ^o ii<*ld Uiafe tJa« 

«iitioii* but tn«i» u:ik«» piikin%kS£ f»tr4>a& r«t&dy ^im4 ^•fj.lXitii;: U; p9^y tk« 

lep«««<l ur'On it )}y tu« Oi^ntraQi** ^'m<» (s^iitrHct it-. <;u&)»x.u>u !• tt#t 
8«t out Ad tijiie dauut *a Imm \vi'h_^ m»v in fmhii%».ue«, nor 4c<i'» it 

Oetwt, th« Juii^«?rtt «f %ii.« trial a»t4rt stuuli \»iii f*?*?*^-.? rm<i tia« 
•ttuee r«K'f«f«4wd to tiiCt 3eurt #4tli instruct toiia to snrerral«s tti* 
d«wurr«r fcr Ui.9 rcaafrii, 4*a *t»tt*<i a;.av«, it; i.j our epiaiaa titat 
tS»« i',i»»t ttouat trj** a«t «i»a©iitittiAii li<j a ^«rt*?«i ■iP^m^er^t, K.ii»pr « 
atcttt ^<: c_u. V. nc » a. IM ill, Si;:i« us umt jinos fth« aw|;r«o« 
ooujrt a«»l!i tij*t ^?Av;i*« a dsolaya.tien oeoialus !*feVOi?«l cemnto^ oiitt 
»f wi-iiefe it&t.«»» a iiCJOd ciiuo« cf actic»» a g^ju^srai -Jmrntrt^T will 
net b*- 3v$tnin«^<J *v0n if ti** 6Ua*X' «€?ati&» '-v!!"* b».4, 

'/iic ^a<i^«[»t of Ui9 ■^\3^^vii>r cotirt in r«tvcr»«d <mm1 

/ n 

( ^'^^ 

2C9 - 26C85 ^^ H^ \ 


mMm !). BROTRmtk • ) 

''■:iRAi. mm cikcvitr court 



S16I.A. 629 


The plaintiff broui<;lit an action in aseii^spsit in th« 
Circuit court ef Cook County against the d«f«idant to recover 
for professional servioee «• attorney alleged to have been ren- 
dered defendant In litiKfttion which grew out of th« last will 
and teetassent of Kancy K, Welch, 

iranay 1. Welch died testate April 1, 1915. leaying 
certain heirs, one ef isrhom was jraatea A. T, TTill, a ijon of de- 
eeaaed's aiater, , Kill died intestate April 13, 1915, leaving 
the defendant as his only heir. 

lt«i«h 8pa«« is given in the briefs of counsel *%o 
ths •xpesitioa of facts touching the services performed by 
plaintiff, wiiloh it «rill net be necessary to refer to at great 
length in this opinion for the reason that there cannot bt much 
doubt, upon the record, of the extent and the value of the ser- 
vices perfomed by plaintiff in the settlstaent of the estates of 
James A, "^ , Kill and ef Nancy B. <»eleh in litigetion vhlch was 
instituted to set aside the vill of the latter and in a eult to 
partition certain real estate. The case was tried before a Jury 
tmich assessed the plaintiff's daaagss at $7,500; Judj^ent was 
entered on the verdict for this sun« and the defendant by her 
appeal to this court seeks to reverse this judgment. 

It is insisted on behalf of the defl^dant that the 
evidence shows that there wns no contract of aaploya>ent between 



th« plaintiff And d«f«ndL«at and ae pronis«« «9cpr«s» or iaplied* 
bjr the defendant to pay for plaintiff's attrTioea. if thie oon- 
tantion la upheld by t^.la court » the jud*^ent in favor of plain- 
tiff nuat be revi^raed and it vill net be neoeasary, in that event, 
%p eonaidar ether points preaented in the brief a filed by the de- 

The erldence la uncontradicted that prior to March 
27 » 1916, the plaintiff had never seen the defendant and had had 
no contractual relation of any oort with her, Irevioua to thia 
date her legal affaira had been Intruated to Arthur B. Wolf a, an 
attorney, who had been the attorney of Nancy B. tfcleh prior to 
her death. He had drawn the latter *8 will under vhioh Jaiaes A. 
T. Hill waa devised one-naif of her estate in his own right; the 
ather half of the estate was devised to hisa in truet fcr a niece. 
Bill died shortly ^after the death of Kaney K, Veloh. wolfe had 
also acted as his attorney prior to his death, and thereafter 
instituted a search t^ich resulted in discovering the defendant 
in thia suit, whom the evidence sis^ows is the only heir of Hill. 

^Ife thereafter acted, under a contract with de- 
f«nds»t« as her attorney in the distribution of the ^eloh and 
Hill estates and in connection with other litigntioa that grew 
out of th«^. F^arly in 1916 the defendant resided in J^ichigan 
and on .folfe's adviea she took up her residence in Chicago so 
that she might legally act as the adR^inistratrix of Kill's es- 
tate. ?he defeiidant cane to Chicago on l^iaron '47, 1916, and iai- 
Mediately went to «olfe«8 office. On March 25, 1»16, *olfe sus- 
tained a fractured skull as a result of an accident and was, at 
the tiae of defendant's visit to his office, confined in a hos- 


ilalntlff on M«roli 27, 1916, occupltd an office in 
tJatt sane nuite in whloli (iolia had hie office. J^^rior to thia 
date, a» stated, the defendunt u&d. nerer &B9u {Xctintlff and they 
never met theroafter until the tim- of the trlRl of the pr»»ent 

Th« evidence ehowa th^t on the day befor*? the ap- 
pearance of defendant in ^o life 'a office, the plaintiff had 
visited Wolfe at the hospital an-j! waa infoTmed by him that the 
defendant .*as expected to visit *oif«»s office the follo$»ing day. 
<?olfe at this tine requested the pi? intiff to do -:rtvnr.«ver was 
necessary lor iiirs, liigj^ius on the occasion of her vii«it. Touch- 
ing what occurred at the iBe«ting between plaintiff »nd defendant, 
the plaintiff testified that hsi wet defendant at nis office on 
March ^7, 1916, and he inforoaed her that *Mr, wolfe nad advised 
ae that ahn was costing in to see hia;** that "ir, i^rolfe had been 
seriously injured an the idaturday before; ** t&at he *had sustaxneA 
a fracture of the sJkull ana was confined in the hospital and 
would be tii«a»e for a long time;" that it was Mr. Wolfe's idea 
that plaintiff should become a resident of this state, and that 
defendant had stated she had coao to Chicagc for that purpose; 
that he had prepared certain papers wnioh ahc signed and swore 
to; that he then gave certain attention to her flBatt«*rs and that 
about the middle of July wr. afolfe infomed him that he {^volfe) 
•would not be able to look after the matters pending in the 
Irobate court, and that I would have to go over and take care 
of it." 

Haintiff also testified that he tcld the defendant 
that heirs wiio had been diaiahxrited under tne .»ill of H»ney &, 
Weleh f«ould file a bill to set aside the will, and that defendant 
replied, "You will look after my in t -rest," "and i told hex i 

«ith ft tst wac9 to h«r relations with plaintiff th« 

defand&nt testified is subetajae* that akas tui4 har fatJacr caa« t« 

Cliie«i;o fr«ai liioJiigan at the auggeetion of Mr, tfolf •; tiiat ahe 

vent te Wolfe** office and that - 

*Vhile we were th^re Mr, Brothers went out te the 
hospital and saw ur, i^olfe, and. wh«n he oaiae baek he told us 
thai kr, «olfe had asked him to take oare of the oaae for ttiia, 
and so he did, ?hat is the substance of the conversation with 
UT, Brothers. I neTer asked I'v, Brothers in any words to look 
after my ease. Mr, Brothers said he was going to take oare of 
the «as« while f»T, Wolfe was in the hospital. I oaae to Chi- 
cago for the ruri^ose of aaViBfj mv residence here, I stayed 
here from March until September, I nev^r saw f r. Brothers 
but that onm time at tlie office when t first oaiae to Chioago, 
t rlid not see hisi at any time after tiiat until the e&amrnict" 
a»ent of this present trial, 1 received aeyisral letters froai 
Kr, Brothers, which were offered here in ^-videnoe, I neweir 
wrote to f.'r, i^rother* with the exce;tion of the one letter 
v^ieh «as introduced in eTidenee." 

The letter written by defendant was written to 

plaintiff March 1^, 1^17, in resfiOBse to a long letter of Maroli 

16, 1^17, froB plaintiff, lu his letter plaintiff evidently 

sought to impress 4«fend«nt with the extent and value of the 

services which he had rendered her and to warn her of the Kuirmer 

in wiileh A^olfe was attending te and j^rot eating her interests. In 

this letter he stated: 

•AS I an the only lawyer irti© has done anything what- 
ever relative to the liti^,ated matters in these estates, I beg 
leave te asy that if you desire me to ic so I will enter your 
appearance in th« matter. of the appeal by the Jublic Adminis- 
trator and try t© hav^ the order of the irobate court sustained," 

In her answer te this letter the defendant wrote: 

■Your letter of recent date was rec««lved and would 

say in reply that ur, Wolfe has a contract to carry the mat- 
ter through to u final settlement, and if I should ins i. met 
you to go aixeod as you heve euggested, r, Wolfe would atill 
carry the right to co»e in for his 1/4 according to the con- 
tr/ict nnd you would »ant a fee wtdoh w?ould laean two fees in- 
steau of one, and so X would sugj^est tixat you and vr. ;folfe 
handle the matter between you and for you to have your pay 
out of the 1/4 #uleu in f&y opinion would make a good nest egg 
for both of yott,* 

on bareh 25, 1917, the plaintiff wrote another 

lengthy letter to defendant, ^n ?9hich he definitely asaerted ho 


Tftyntttm t9d all 

int«nd«d to inalat upon beinn; puid for his •ervicfto, and ho atatodl! 

*Z havo no deoigni on your oatRte nor »ny other ao* 
tlTO in proourinc; this piurtlal distribution than to give you ttx« 
iiKBOdiato benefit of a pRTt of your oatRte* and also to enablt 
you or vr, Wolfo to pay m<» my foe, :yhiohev«r on« you may ae,r«o 
among you s^J>uld be the onf> to pay It,** 

The plaintiff testified that later he had a tol «^hon« 
oonversation wiUi defendant in whioh he said to her that he ex* 
peoted to look to her for ccnpeneation for uis services and that 
she replied, "Mr, Vifolfe will taJce the ffiatt*?^r up with you and he 
has agreed to tay you out of his portion." H«« lurther testified 
that this coded his conferences with defendant. 

Whether the plaintiff att«Bipted to undermine the eon<- 
fidenee ^ich defendant had in Wolfe as her attorney, need not be 
discussed or determined at this tijae. It is perfectly Gli»ir» 
hewsYer, from the «Tldence that defendant iid not osaploy plaintiff 
as her attorney. The eTldence discloses that defendant promptly 
and definitely denied any •responsibility to th«t plaintiff for any 
services he had rendered in the litigation and proceedings in 
which she had an interest. Ko express oontraot between the parti «• 
is dlaolosed by the OTldenee and nothing «ms said or cione by de- 
fendant, OTsn upon the testimony of plaintiff aioself, that indi- 
cated any puri^ose or intention on her part to employ plaintiff. It 
is conceded txutt defendant never tt<et plaintiff but onoe, and, upon 
plaintiff «s Ycsraioa as to ^ixhat transpired on this occasion, no con- 
tract was entered into at tnls tljse between the parties, ilaintiff 
adsita that he net her and talked with her at this tiae solely at 
the request of aolfe, whose unexpected illness requires dsa to 
procure assistaace in connection with defendant* s property inter- 

rlalntiff made no attenpt to eiiarge the defendant for 
Mnrioes rendered by hisi until he had fallen out with Wolfe. The 
erlaence dees diaclose that defendant knew that Wolfe had requested 



plAintiff to matist him in th« aenrio«s welf« liad agreed to rei)'* 
der under hie oontr<)Otv The letter* written by plaintiff to 
defendant and his tel ei'Jtxone conversation with her, whioh oon« 
tftined in the aain seXf-eerTinK assertione, failed to elleit frcn 
defendant any statement whioh s^iiowe that she regarded tiie plain* 
tiff &• her attorney, or thnt she inten^ied to eoiploy hist as riuoh. 
J^rther than this, the evidence ahowi* that the plaintiff delivered 
to t/olfs an it«))i8fld etatenent for servioes performed by plain* 
tiff anrt demanded of Wolfe i^ayaent thereof. 

The evidence shows; that Wolfe had a contraot with 
defendant under which she aitreed to pay hia a certain contingent 
fee for his servioes. There was nothinfr in the eontr:<ct whloh 
authorised Wolfe to eb^rge h<*r with responeibility for aervioea 
rendered by other couneel , ^ane v, Vohr , 15S III. 561, iroof 
that the defendant knew of plaintiff's eervioes was not suffi- 
cient, tric e V, l^Qjf et al . , Ida ill, 54S, 

^** Chipag p^ j^ goutiiern VrftCtion coeapany v. Flaherty , 
ZZ2 111, 67* it was held thut tiae duty of an attorney ic his oiient 
was a personal duty which could not be dole^ated to another, so as 
to bind thf? client, witt/out his consent, for the lsttor*s services, 

•fhe Judgnent of the Circuit court will be reversed 
with fln{*.ing of f8«M, 


20y - 25C8S , FIIIDU-a CF fAflfa, 

thi» court finds ne fsct* in till a OA«e tixHt there vaa 
no contract of employment entered into between plaintiff and de- 
fendant, and tbat plaintiff did not at def (snvi«.nt*e inntance and 
requnat perform services or inour expenses in and about certain 
oases for the defendant, as described in his declaration, and 
defenaant did not proariee to pay plaintiff the reasonable value 
of said services, and did not promise to pay hlia any suoa of 
aoney, as alleged in plaintiff's declaration or in »ny count 


16I.A. 629 

ion aOs&2 

TidL& Is . i "^ i3.«f«^nilt ft©» ft ^tf-'i .*"«♦**♦ •* tlN« 

t3f«yl€>ip aeurt In f^iNjar of the tjlwinUff for t=h*» ? •..sxjo. 

lfti7 tiC ^ and tJrni tiM 4«f«i^. ii frul3lt,7 nf «i Uha ttii4 «rMit* 

tr|6Xj»ti«ii »f *i mXm of «•£•«§*- 

•«t first rtteiiivl}. :^ ^-s-ejriatan w fn*»»( !»iil tlittt 

t :■■■!*« iMi^flipwit ii» not plttei- ;o n£tit«at 

iai/.iitf frer; ;ji!*;>r€MftfefeJii|f trUfij'" «t *> xxxxxxx volAt) sowtoiof 

.4'*.: fee ioejr <i«r« 9 %9 Ite? ,- ttjiatdsr tha w en'« 


in th« tt»<wt»i»v« @f tifts# #?yr« fax hU:t is^^m mifrntj^i Um% t|y» 

i?3d»i-r*iift *«d@iv»'d M» in^^ui'ii^ii ?ii'« ^^:0*-« i lie* In 

tsd.m %^ »*«2ir« f«^ jft%;3L%^fmsa« ®a i^bj* |»?*rt ef Ha© • .i* 

;>!?■■ 'v,C»f«:i tmA ■'■j.e timm.e fax* v 44»%'«irwMi ©f 

at^oift tt. him- I** jNl-jmisP w«3?lc* ^«upA 

tjffeefefij tl*.** isoet track ^i»^; vamU #«»• ©m**-; .^ .:i 

»yiA2« tamoit for mtstrnms %m4jm» mm im^mAm •^m^^xm mi %h& 

■-'>i*'<?i9t ©aim fw»r« <>*s«r!>it«A <^» i- ie »t^t;v:?%# 

wjrk €9» tfe« sirsmttjx* for two eif tlir<M - f?#T9 t**» s&f ®f 

^■©»ic '^tsw#<i«$ X8^ ttud afitli str««ti?s this? «i»iit liM fee. ■ 

iMMi«»siit#i7 ^<> ":$li»«« «««i«x». ^I.»«i«4': «%!>««» th'O ««i.)}lti» b<'" 

r^iisu ^i.^"ht ^« %»%M. v^mTm^m Ui^^tM v.^(»fii» '<->^««># -vm^iii \rii.m. «. 

H«st«t 4'^ s 4' sr l?-r'' ift d.iiiiiMi©if?a«»t;.f-^ 

■jxo.%s-Cir^- onto tho v : , in ■miLKlra^ north on tkris atabXtt 

h<>-/ »lsulrit.iff if&e ^o .!.r0d to strs^dXe a raii mM %fs«.^»9oa 

It l0 t«r^c«4 ttet fee vi»e« jroqtuir^-u to look dowiii*«j?a k'O «u5 

^(jx ^c taMLp ov<sr ?B«k.terl4Tjl eoatter©-' aJlong tl-?© ¥xa;s-» It w»f 

rfiinirijT at the tl,ro« th© '■ioelts ««t amfnxitmd,^ rlaiwtlff "^ -. ' 


in order to 'i^laoe the other block xm-it th« eim t:X a rsii ^.v^^^s 
h« 's'jaa gtriJaJc h^ yjt •xf*r««>« train, r»j.r«iilfjg- Ijr h «©rtJierl^ 
dlreotloru ?h« eviAtanee t^r^fia t43 «T<©w thftt %h» ^laliitltt ^ft«i 
>vl8 )!>«.«k turned %o tlie a»pro«it!hlft|r tmlfn at tH© s^ORifiiRt o*" th« 

*».t i.n«* s.isT5« oj. >.-he t\o«}id@«t \.«;o tsfcraei is®n '.'/ho flrjrjt 
left t?)© platfors^^ iisolmilrig i-^ar«s» w«r« al»oi?t at SStir* i5tr«ot. 
Tlse etl^ar Ejen, iticludliv Corfc^tt, w©r« woriclBf? at Oifferont 
ooiuts batwsan 26t*j. and S^t^i Strv>et«« 

fher« Is B©B^ «o.ritrir4diotie« !« tho ©vld»i'i<>f.« m: to 
";."'.e^'' £?r '.my is^itmini^ wrk f^lTon tc plaintiff of the mps^r^h of 
t>>G irssin. '^^ard «y»d tfe© raotorman of the train toetlfiim t^ir;.t 
f^ whistle was hlmri) %>y t>i« laoter^MiB wfetsn tJi© tralw wag atsmi.t 
tv o .if^cfca BOifti^. ftf where wlai/itiff we«? flroarkiiif:* 'i'he K*>toxinftR 
tef':iii'ioa. ttet he eew T>lal»tiff oa the trsmka fro;:., tk-o tlaio he, 

l'<», left 89th 0tre«t» l4fA-;idlK, who ^ -■-"-;■-?«. ahtmt 

;K«> fii&% ee'^tith of the tjlaiwtlff, testified WbI nv ,.. va . arnli?^ 
to tl'!© vsXftinUff 91 ?Ate fej^^^irftftel^ of the trulfl b,? ehoutiii;." the 

ecrd ■*r*'dl;co-55d#" & werd i2»«Hi '^y the - "^ "■;'-■'• -lirnirsf ef the 

fe»»prois«h of traij^e* Cor^ett, whti v •* nolet nftr^ 

ef the r^ialntiff »«ys^ he heard tlf>.lB v«:virf.-.Aii|;> 



tiiseirc ffSr :.iij; ;.njr--?«i?« <if ^?T?fiM.^.t ii.;afii S^oi,.. ^5^--^ir««.i/ express 

'S1«« «aK5»»^ %»airs «^j.«|j ®%»f*«lte .:iiillJ 141:1 s3om'i0tiM 
ei ifeiap o«wm« ^w^t how tl*® ©®3J.if»icsri s^swrtiKt I0 a^t «j;;art.i5;ir> 
tii^«y y^.** evidence.. S-.:^.it|-5.«X' tba t?3t»t)>-;t4fl nor tlfeo 

- tm^ %im mm f^iftliest B<j«tfe# "t© ©^^4 o«t« " Ji^i-at:^.-:-!!., 

«i It® «««» ft%«<t^t Sit f^ftfc l^tiM>*st# Hc^diast, r^-Xes© « wiv ■ '-im%%*' 
1iM» ^--tifesav*, h«llMMi "rsiJtxn?*^. " Mk>l*«i»fif.*a» i«»i«f^.i tfeit- :';ii '.rj?-ld 

eiii. 'tis til*) «B»it«»«-»i* 'J'.U n.K,«»<.* <i»lji&l«*4f# ftftiSttfttta *!•• ■ -<«« »»• 


>:>r;9i; LVO 


'^"hm »irl4«jte« v at a fti&r- • fm% 

■^\lmte.i U.M iO^iivtiff «yria ^»<& mm vii%l hm^ ' ■ ' u 

9Mi %*!■«* n 

■. fir; ' ^' • 



^* tJimtli fe««yB^ trfiiJR. l»«Ma pmmmi ^Xmi^'Wii ivi< % ■■:^T-;*r« 

a©ih fifisj ijfith si* ■'■«%» 9^10 i?»jj?« :Hlr,;. a tttfi^ ""to ?«.U m «n te 
.hir:-«'* >?h« tara4i> e$« ?mNi after i^« ft»«|ii«t '^ "•"-* "^ 'IS fiMi*. 

«sl%en it p^s«4 I'^im t% vffiusi "^^iiitv'" ]>fi sir tB m%%im «m hmm* 
V%mXn%ktf*n te«U«^»»y i thfii %)m irtvlis At ^« t&f5« it «%i^{«k 

< ' 

o5vsjrf.r«4 tfe:i»& iPeiil^ «tii«^ #«t^f^.#et a ©M-« ef *..« 

»i©«*icis Usii,! -^#*|» «5i lM» ^«is«4 Mia*!»' i;,,« fmil«| %h^ li**. &«• 
«j«fsi^ s»i«* *?f*%««tx«ii *iii. .U«f men. >**« «s3r^tf!«try ostm* «• 

or mvf-w'j r9i^m!':»m^^x& mn^iim «li-i»ii ismiiA %»m *# ulJ;■«•t«l♦^fe -^n js^« 

tv^fj SMI ttt «4 fii«tiftr'#® fr(«s n^UiiHifi «a>a !i«« fa* SMS tlji© 8rv4d*r«w» 

- '<: no «>»& h»A h$im «ll?<KilNiMi !>:;- tKit an pcf^jrA f «# ^i^l^ftif^Mff 

. %h0 mm wmtkXin^, with l>iee« .'mvm tktm v»$f-M itn ^I'wmi %t^ ■ 

i.fet> ^t>td •! tii« sMiwatlwri to t-«j &^nti-'': ion ' r4M cs3P®at«!>^ 

. ne! 


l^^r.titi AM Sit^t aawir-?^-- rt-^:,B mg^ r&^'^l%-'-^ :. ■:! 
Bi&.'X'ij"m:^« «tr» ett «&*!-, A i»*.M« t<^ it» 

v.Wt- «5jJf r^, lift %|l|« «fe^- »■«» f-f ^ ?-:■■.• ••-nilff*® «itef?i#|P!0a«t #':■:■ . 

*'«siri»« im% ef m©A !& iy?^« m-wm» i^f &mf<lmimM:t*'" These v 

tone wiiijp« iwrn^flji? 5t^<?f;'rs#4 ^j? %hmm i0 n^ nft^ «^;' i^ielr in i>0 

net lirft* t*..» fi*«t tfeftt th^ «!fVt.4«i>0« iij ««*Mt«i---f.;iv«' ai«j ^? fM& 

d®l©«ri.a*jt «*?«. hftS©J?*t,^©ti st »ts*mir:|tr# Ail t^« «!flt#«*«»«>te, 
ai\]|! th« «iinMi-^ti»n »'■ ««if^, t#«tlfi#« th«t aft3!^l»#t%, %^ ^a-t 

•fid «liil« h& fijmvmsd to «4.t^#y ^/^«k: its jfiBH^te eft ti'»« f^?rj. 

^.t ^fefi-ter-f %§ ihe %x^i%h fjm t© ^hla «y».tti«', :.i?ii>fe«44«»ti*;j© «if 
*M» (Ksx^^sr, i>i''«^ si» tl^,« f»«« «feiA t« ^*^*6! iwjf#p ^•■t'rwR ^ •"'•liflflg '^•s' 


«.^:., *...».. ttf IU« Mf, ^■>-- i«J 


;.l*j 1&« di«0j»«^**4 Ward's * '^-'^ w?**? . ■■'*• 

■^^ in ii«%.m^ #*'. 

ma -^nl-n-^->T. ■ . ^ »*}? ?U.« 


a' t-r ti\. 

am« «it<i th» 3mi«« ©i' ^« A^'fcs'^, hlB *:&ilr»r« to d« #;« at 
lis »^eiJ*&^ m)il9t %h9 "r: ; , en' '^ "■ imi s..e%% %f im mt% 

w« «ir« ii>cfXlni»4 t<» %«l4rf8» la-sftt tla» »irt4«*i«» fi*n»w« t>'*t 0©i%ttt 
1MMS tfc« -issJUliSitil^f •« lii9!fe»4i ■■*-.» «i-v.?»^s»-^.«3r ^&A h^ te» rig!Ht i* 

IMP© etiil <ji tM »s>4iil©j? '&mi, itt^ ^^#ij»i^ t« i^-se^lK ©f 4#«'®M4^*«t 
I»«f0f'e i&.h« imtt^i* #f ■■«!jpi *© i^ft ?%l^xt.f©,mft» «<r plaintiff® 

SUA Itt a^i'^'i*' ««rt^u l«8tir^?*:t4rjii» at tfc«j ip««is««t ef i^lair^tlff* 
1% mmi not «i'yoi? te iii«ti?«et tl?# J«»^ Ife^t if U%m^ fmm^ tlv« 


«owi e«i»At timifmof i%^ v»iiKti«t t^t^^'^M &« fesF tlso ?aai^'t4ff» 

tlis luatjfi^otiyft far ® alri^o-l^ v»ri.i«ti.» 

'^Iff et^ataUls^ti a f:i ?>f th^ i#ft J.«g, %ot>^ -^a® ti'fjli's 

;:•■:';.■■{,• ^«jf« lit n'fiAmm* ia i'h# r«®«rt w^t^h ^m^r, %€> arfr^i^ 


293 - ii6l70 \ 

JO anil Sil'ABIS, \ ) 

) / Of COOK COtfStY, 

AppfflLlARl^* ) 

216I.A. 629 

This Is an eppwil by the dwf enimnt, Chioago Rftilweyt 
Cosspany, frea a Jud/KV^^nt of th« 3«vf>rior Court enteredi in fftvor 
of the plaintiff for the •u«i of ^ii,t)eo, 

fh« aecidont which brought about the injuries to 
plaintiff ooourred about «ight o'ulook in the isTenln^ of >«c«)ab«r 
lii, 191l« in tiie vicinity of tlie interracotion of van j^uren and 
Franklin straeta in ciitioago. ;he cftoa tiatt bison tritsd twiea be* 
fere a Jury amj a Terdict in !i«eii ease «a» rendered in fnvor of 
the plaintiff. 

It is insisted for the defendant as a sole ground 
for the rtTersal of tlia 4ttdg»*nt that the verdiet of the jury is 
contrary to the law and the eYidence, A atueh oontroyerted ques- 
tion of fact on the trial was iriiethar the aocident occurred at 
the east oros»«wftlk on Pranklin street at the intersection of "/an 
Buren street* or whether it occurred on Van Bur en «treot near the 
siiddle of the block between Franklin street and vifth avanue. a 
street n»xt east of i^ranklin street, as contended for by defendart. 
This qufsticn was properly euWfiitted tc the Jury. «hil« seireral 
witnesses testified that the aooident ooourred near tha mlddla cf 
the block, certain other witnesses fcr the plaintiff twstlfieti that 
it happened at the east cress-walk, and there are eerta vn uneon- 
tradioted facta in the ««isa wuich lend so«e support to turn theor.¥ of 
plaintiff on this question, ilaintiff at the ti&ae of the aocident 
was eaiiployed as a laborer en a building then in the course of ereo- 

:>So .A.Id 

tlon on the north«iiig% cer?!«r ef Pranilin and Van buren »tr««t8. H« 

•ad t«e other 9itn«e«ei teatlfled thiit th«lr flroricing heurt on tho 

building were from ft^uir o*eleek p» m., until i^idfiight; that, the aw 

««re ftllC'vod 15 ffilrmt«» about »l|^t o'clock eao/i eYeuing for luneh; 

tiiat it vmn duotojeas.ry for pl&ixktitt suad other raon trnpleyed in tko 

building to go to ». r««t«iiur»nt olfcuated on the ooutii side of Van 

uren two or tiare« <loora oaot of Frcinklin street; Uin-t on tl^io ovon* 

leg in que»tion« in ftooordanoe '«ritli ttiis t^uatost* plaintiff and two 

oUier workmen left tao building wiiere thesy wore f*t work and i8t«rted 

aero 08 vnn Imuran otro«t to t&« r«ot«tur»nt{ tbfit nn tu«y stArttd 

aorosa tho «tr««t thoy saw a larg^ ^Rgon «»tanaing len^thwiaa on tha 

north aid* of Van Buran atreet with ita rear and toward tha waat and 

a ahort diatanoa aaat of tha northeaat corner. The |;lalntiff teati* 

fied thet »b he started aoroee the atreet he aaw the light of a 

atreet oar which waa ooreinfj tciwwuri tha oroaaing fro» the weat; that 

he looked to the asat and aaw nethinf* except the «A®on standing be- 

twe??in ti^e north curb line «nd tha north traoirs on Van 3<.uren atraat; 

that he did not hear a bell and that aa he waa about to atep acrcaa 

tha north traok he waa atruok by a w«atb(;uad atreet car and austainad 


(M« Bogdonia, a wiinaaa for plaintiff, teatified »ith 

relation to whnt happened Juat before the accident occurred aa fol- 


** v7hen wa oaise up out ef tiae baaas^ent we ocffie tc go 
acroaa the atreet. atanley iwadia went in front, joe -iiparia 
follow©;? hiM, iw«dia went aouth. mo * ot Juat acroea the traoka. 
the next »an after ^iwadia was Joe s»iparie; how far iie waa b<&i^jind 
"fiwndie, why, i couldn^t uay, ten or aix feet, or what, i couldn't 
aay, i Ju»t got off fro;? the aidewalk to the atreet. i «aa 
atftrting aor©*a tha atreet, too. Aa I got off the sidewalk I 
locked one aide nnd the otsier, nnd I aaw the oar witb a big li^fat 

Juat one wagon atHn^JS/u!^;, ' f ooul M?t ^7""'"^ ''^ '^^* ««•^' 
waa at«ri.Unfi: with r*f r«»t. f * t ccul.ari't aay .mrre the w»gon 

raet eaat of ae and an t>* ««;.*k .1 , * »wwut ^lijix or ta« 
I «aan he w». hirby th^ c*r Inl J '^ ''^. '* ' **"^*° atreet.-.. 
t*k^ away,- ^ ^ "** *''*" ^"^ ^*^ «« ^'^'^ platforai 




If it bp true, n» asuertttd by wJltn€B»«o for plftintlff, 
tlMit the m^rk'.aen w«rt oA th«ir way to a rftatnurnrvt on th% south 
side cf ^'an Bur«n street, th«n nc ftd»qu»t« roeaon Is shewn why th«y 
should h/iv« attampted to oross the streit-t at ft point a oonsidsrabXt 
distance fast of th« r«»»taur.^nt, as aswerted hy "^itiiftases for tha 

fhet eirldanoa disolosas Uiat it ^m» dnrk and rainy 
on th« nitrtit in ctutstion and witntsses fnr tha plaintiff testifiad 
to fRCts whia:., if true, indioata that the street oar wrhioh atruek 
I'laintiff was running without a h«adlif;ht. 

Bagdonia testified that he saw tite wcatbound street 
car when i was a couple of feet frot^ th© pl^ce i*h«re it tttruek 
plaintiff* "and there was net any headlight burning on the front 
ead of the oar at ttiat tise. Tka ear was £oine fast when it hit 
Joe 3iparia,»» 

The teatliaony of plaintiff's witnesaes tends to shew 
that the oar had etopped when it reached ahout the wlddle of 
Franklin street, 

Alax J*acujlti8, n 'vltnesa for plaintiff, who waa 
rldini.! en the front platform of th* ^vcjattjound ear, testified that 
he aaw a headlight on the <9«8tbound oar, hut thst he did not saa 
on« on the? cmr on i#hiob he (WS riding; tirnt he boarded the oar at 
Laiialle street and at that tit6«» it had no headlight, ilmintiff 
testified that its he attesipteii tc cross the tracks ho looked east 
and did not see tne i^esthound oar* 

sriUle tha defendant did introduce soiae testistony, 
that of the con^-tuctor and «otcr»an on the oar, tc the effect tnat 
the ear here a headlight at the tiaie of the accident, tlUs eTidanoa 
•n the point is not by any xaeans conclueiTe, 

Kvaa though it be true, as contended, that the car 
*«^* lighted on the inside and that the ligntlng equipment, when in 
proper condition, required tlr^at the headlight should be burning at 

vs ; .,! 



all tlis«B «h«n the Inald* lights wer« turned on, thid dG«a not ax* 
olude tii« rcBelibllltjf th^t tii* ectuipfft^ftt on ih« night In qu«atitm 
vfts not in ptvp^x workitm oonditlcn. 

W^fm due connideration la ftlvcn tc tlie unocBtradietiid 
t«8tlffiony thAt th« plRlntiff and oth«ar «ork»<« w«re on their ^ly 
to ft restaurant on the acuth side of Van Bwren street, a si.ort 
distanee <»>a«t of Franklin atraet; that the night was dark and rainy; 
that th« vision of plaintiff was In ao«« s«aaura obstructed by tha 
wagon standing on th« north aide of Van Buren street; that erl* 
daaoe ims admitted tandinij ie prove that the oar was running at 
a high rat© of sf.««d an ' that it bore no headliprht, we pro not 
authorised, to as a »atter of l»tw»te nay that the cencluslona er* 
rlTed «t by the jury were ineorrect. 

In the case of r hica | ^ o Ci tv l \y . Co , v. ZjlUlilBBJSS,* 

199 111. 9, the aus»r«tiie court said; 

"Anticipation of negligence in ct.icrs is not a duty 
m^leh the lav Izapoaes. >vn th« contrary, it in a preoueiption 
of law tiiat every person will j:<?rforffi the duty enjoined by law 
or Iskpossd by contract. where, for intitonoe, the traveler 
knows that the lav requires a railroad co&pan to ring a be%l, 
or sound a nfhlstle, he iias a rif;ht to rely upon the pcrfcrt^uncs 
of such auty by the company, (2 ^n^pj^t*Td on Torts, 97C ; shsarauiB 
*. Ksdfield on liegiigenee, ueo, 92; at, ^i,oui8 . Von da I ia and Terre 
Kaute Kail road Co . v. ;atnn , 7b II1.T97; i.h lcagc , Burlin^tcn l 
^i^ulnc y y^ ailroa d Co, v. Cunderscn , 174 id." 'i^'tt'j ^' hO|»! M r"v7 fn jiw giy 
CO , , '* '-'ed, f-ej.TSE), tn tKe ease at bar aj-p Pil.RntT'c «?ed it, p^b 
a dwtv to appellee ^n<\ to the public ff:on«ral3y to equip its trains 
with rrcper headlights. When app«llee started to cross the street 
she had » rif^ht to aseuise t-at the wppellant would ptrfcra his 
duty, »nd hnA » ri<j^,ht tc r«ly upon the bolle^f that no train would 
avjroach without a proper headlight. If she saw no headli/^l^t she 
had a rif^ht to assuase that no train was approaohini;.* 

The Judiqsient of the Superior court Is affirmedi. 

317 - a&iys 

JORK a. P3,I2I>:0 /SKI. ) 


0? CfilCAtJO. 

Appellant, ) 


tl6I.A. 6 30 

»?!!?, JUSTICE. T5TT?K MT.iTPS»TTD Tim cj^iKicar OF THr ccamT, 

The <J#f «;n<*RRt. »6«»ka by tule ftppwil lo reverse a 
Jttd{^<mt in the runicipal court in fftvcr cf };lalnt if i' for tl;e svm 
of ;^4(?5« 

'j;'h9 plalntii'f i.i ftn Aret^iteet and h.l{f ol&isi Against 
tile <l«fend»nt i& Tor uioncy du« for pftrscnal 8«nrlc68 rendered de- 
fendant. ¥ix« d«f«n»«a »et MP by the defendant were, in aub«tano«, 
tiiat, excet^tia^ »» %o one cUs^rge ii«r;i» none ot ttitf it<;a;i0 In tlitt 
ttatfivent for services rendered wm> fcr »erTic«» jptforiued at 
the rrquest of the def en.'iBnt, and tfcut rsa te t.ll the Iteoe In aaid 
8tHt»»rr,r=nt, except cafe, *he plaintiff never tar ie or inttfided to najio 
any eliilsi tbf!ir«for a^'slnst itm defendiUit; th&t ILe cbt^rgso laado vert 
froealy exceeelre and that all Juat and l^s&l cl»ls5& ©f plaintiff 
ageinat th«p doffendant had boon duly paid toy dffeni^ant, "^hieh fact 
WRi evidenced by chcok» intrcducad in #Tidenee. 

It is urged by defendant titat the Terdlet and Judg* 
ment are contrary to the lannifest weight of the evidence, ^^ethar 
in fact the plaintiff had rendered the ecrvioeo for defendant and 
whether the cmfirgea mada therefcr were exoessive, were queaticao of 
fact for the deteri&infttien of tho Jury. The evidmice Intreducod ea 
the material qu«8tiona of fact was conflicting, tioxae evidence was 
introduced in favor of the contention of the plftiatiff that the ear- 
Tioes ^ere performed at the expreas requeat of the defendant, and 
«hile there le reaeon to believe tiiet the chargeo wade for certain 

r # 

of tliea* 8«rTiee« irere exeeasiT** «• ar« unable to s«y that Xh* 
verdiot of UxB Jury and jud^^ent of th« trial court on the con- 
troverted question of ime% wera erroneous* Tha olaia of plaintiff 

aaa for ^A6b; thi« amount was raduoad by tha verdict of tii« Jury to 

There does not appear in the record any aericua con* 
tentlon that ttie eervloee «wed for were not in fact perfcr^fid. Tha 
aeaertion of defendant le that he and plaintiff had l}e^n friends 
for BUkny yeara, It was the rraetiee of each of tho parties tc en- 
deavor tf> profivtre buein-as fc>r th<» otlier, and mxil i* we wro irclined 
to the view that th« evlrt'woe finfs shew that the peracnel nrd busi* 
neaa releticna between the parties were intimate* tliis fnot in «md 
of itself wa« not sufficient t** warrant the heli«i;f , pvl^'n^ntly en- 
tertained by tiie def<indHrit, thH«, th<i earvio** rtftnUarad by iha 
plaintiff were perfoneed eratuitcualy, l . C, Ji. ,n^ Co. v, GiUia , 
66 ill« 317; wel ou v. C. c, iiy, Co ,, 1V5 111, app, 146. 

It 4ii ej.axi»e<l t>uat. the eourt erred in ({iv^6 instruo- 
ttona l« the Jury, the aoetraat of record filed Herein does not 
disci on* what instruafeiona weif* iw |tt<jw ^tMma to the Jury, the »b- 
strtiot reeiies, ■wnereupcn the court gave, among others, the fol- 
1 opsins instruct ions." *e are therofore net apprised os to T«hat in- 
str'iotloas war* givwi tct the Jury, «nd such b«ln#f the ease we are 
unabl'*' to determine whether the jury were properly instructed. 

Xt i& oonoeivable that iontruotions mijcht have bean 
given to the Jury which would hnve cured th* alleged defects in the 
inrttructione oocjplHined of. There if* islso w«sTit in the contention 

teRde by ccuneal for j>laintiff that the record fnil « to dlscloaa 
wpoB whose request the instruotione ooai;plained of were fci^en to 
the Jury, if, as a matter of faat, these instructions were given 
at the request of the defendant tie. would not be periaitted in this 
•Qurt to oesiplain of such aetion on the part of the trial Judge. 
goyd V. .;0tinell . 209 ill. App. 187, 

FurAher, an exmtination of the record discloses thai 



defendant ♦a oounsal otjjeoted to th« Riving of the inatruoticni, but 
im f«il»d Khev »c dpinir ta p; iat out sjeclficaXly hie reavona far 
hi» •bJftctioa». rh« recaro aiiowa that "the d«f«ndRnt. by hi« 
counasl, th«Q tmd th«r« ttxoeptcd vit&out pointing out tc the court 
«ny «v«ci^i« ground of ebjeetion or exoeptica,* the record doeo 
npt diJfaloiite that def end!M»t*a 0<;>ujieel was not gi^en an opportunity to 
point out «uch specific objftcticno. if nnv, a« he raight ha-»s urged 
to the giviau of the instructione. 1 e will not ba p<?r!^itted then 
to pro»#»nt tho£»« ob4teOtioiiA for the first tise to this court, 
ChiciBf 70 7. ^^^Xlif^» Xfi'^ lil-. Apis, 623. 

Hftwe-yer, it is our oftinlon that, on? of th« instruetlone* 
the fifth, expresses m rcrreet prineipl* of l»w ftppllesble to the 
facte of the ease. A9 to th*! other inetructicn^ th<* 9ixth* the 
plaintiff did testify ibtit e^rtain ch«oki payable "in f«ll" were 
given iiQ conneetion with «»ttera not involved in the pr«^sent con- 
trover ey. 

The jtt-ligsBent of the tunicpftl court will be affiraed. 


•.?t- 1 

326 - 2S804 

Q(3»»AJi'i, & Corp., 

▼ s. 

aacnoM B. Gary, 


lliiRicipti.1 Cottrt 
of Chictigo. 

Kfi. JUJillCS D VKR iX;l.IV^!tK:D Tffie OPIlJlOll 0'' IIW COURT. 

Atlantic Transport Cos^any for many y«»r8 «a& engiiged 
in the businoas of shipping goods Wtween Aaaeriotm and foreign 
yortB, a purt of which business was eeodueted bslwisn BfAltimort, 
M4., end Bolt&&X, Iroland. In preyiain;^' for th« trnneport>>.tion 
of goods for its castoners the plaintiff snmetises eiiployed 
vessels ovmed by itself and nt other lines it engaged spAce in 
▼essels oi«ned by ethers. It whs cuutemary for the plaintiff to 
enter into coBtrnctu srith ahippertt for the carria^ of goods 
and freight. betv8«!n fialtinore »nA Belfast, \mder which the 
plaintiff w.^8 required to provide the vessels for this servioe . 

In the conduct of its business between the n&i»d 
ports it was plaintiff's cub tost to deliver its shipments to 
«h»t is known ae the *lAr4 Line.* this naae does not indic;%te 
a corporation or eoaqpiany owning and operating k line of stean* 
■hiys, but is indicr^tive of "a service." The steajaships vtiieh 
oarried shipsMnta contracted for by plaintiff were generally 
under different ownerships; oertain contracts Bsade by plain- 
t^i^f with shippers deaignBted "the service* which plaintiff 
veuld engage to oarry such shlpznents; the eerrlce between 
Baltlsore, Sd., end Belfast and Dublin, Ireland, is knovm as 
the "Lord Line"; that between B^ltiaere and London as Xhm 



•AUantio Transport Line." und th« •erTie« between Boltlaore 
wad Antmrp U th« "Had star Lin*.* the plaintiff in con- 
tracting tor •Lord Lin«« s«rTloe u««d the veBB«l« of dlfforent 
©«n«r8. The stflamrt Lord Charl«mont cind Lord Crroond were 
owned toy the Irioh tihip fhrners GoH^&ny. 

Gn May 13, 1916, the defendant SMtdo inquiry of on 
authorised agont of plaintiff irtiether defendant could prccur* 
Tossel 0p»ce for 500 tona of gftucou* for idxipmnt to Belfast^ 
and he whs inf onaed that axxtiki spaoe woa availahle for a otatod 
rate. Foliowins this a contract in writing was prepared by 
plaintiff and nailed to defwidsunt, Tho iQRt<^ri,<L part of thii 
contract as Modified en June 7, 1916, is aa follows: 
"Frel.'^t Contract »o. 944 Corrected. 
Chicago, Jun« 7, 1916, 

Mr. Georgo B. Ci ry, 

ebater Building, 
Chicago, 111. 

By your authority «r.d eu^jeet t«> the condltiona 
written, atan^ed and prtntert hereon, we haw to-day 
male contract between you and lord Line for shipment 
via Baltiaore to B«lfaBt, Ireland, a@ follows: 

SOO tons P,iuco«# in harrele. ^^^ ^^£M 

ijhippftr's optinn of ap lying |1,:3S per 100 

stRrch, oilcake ^/or oatweal Ibe, 

in aack». 

subject to tJie clauee appearing ©n reverae aide. 

100 tons for a, a. "Lord Chnrleasont* appointed to 
•ail about June ^Oth. 

400 tona for 3. 3. "Lord Ornomiii* appointed to 
oail late July, • * • 

Iinportant — Send clear copies of Bill of Lading 
fthowln^r above contract nujBbers, on the dty of issue to 
J. D, Roth, a, W. F. A, 327 So. L&^all« at., Chio»;^. 

J, D. ftOth, 


Por A. jr. r^wanaon.* 
J. D, i^oth, n»B»d in the ©f^trtict, wse the gerwral western 
freight agent of plaintiff and not r»f Lord Line, which was not, 
a» stated, a legal entity. 

while t^r« are tOBto ftxyrtsslona in th« oontrAot UAd 
in the teatimony of MoAlIlstvr, « witntss for plalaUff, th;^t 
iMnd support to the arguneni that plaintiff was aotlAg ffier«ly »• 
•n agant la the transMCtion, v» ^re ooovincad fron an •xanlnatiMi 
•f the vhole record that thu plaintiff dealt with the defend^mt 
as a principal and that the cm tract, ho-mr«r an'bigueue in 
Identifying the partiea thereto, wt&a in fact, to the kaewledst 
•f everybody concerned, entered into hy plaintiff and deltenclant* 
The evilence discloses that the defend&nt had for eoiue yefira 
done business with the western agent of the plaintiff and it is 
a fair inferenee derived frees the evidenoe that he kxxevi of tlie 
nature of the business c<mduoted hy def ondant and the zsethods 
employed by it in conducting this businesa. 

The ^fend%nt accepted the eentri'ct vmder w ich he 
agreed to deliver lOO tons of gXuoose for shipsasnt on Lord 
CharleoMmt, which was *appoint«d to B»il ah cut June 20th,* Th# 
evidenoe shows that th^ oteaiiship Lord Charlemoat arrived in 
the port of Baltimore on June 17, 1916, and departed therefrom 
for Belfast on June ZA, 1916; th^it during all this tine the 
plaintiff wee ready and able to comply with the terms of the 
eontraot and that defendant w&s aware of this fu otj that 
defendant failed and neglected to noke delivery of the shipment 
to the pl&intiff; that plaintiff had reserved in the Lord 
CEharlemont the necessary space for the ohipment, and thKt plain- 
tiff vas unable before the departure of the v«Si»el for Belfast 
to procure other oorgo for the space cantx%.cted for by defendant . 
The shipment which wna not delivered in time tSiae shipment on 
Lord Charlemont wus eubse<|uently delivered to plaintiff and 
shipped to Belfast on another vobuel. The evidence shows that 
tiki loss to plaintiff by re>«sim of defendant's breach of the 
contract was ^3,720, The c»»e w&s tried ia tiie l^unieipal Court 
•f Chicago by the court without « Jury and Judgment w^^s entered 

?;<i^ii.V V. V; 

XlSille. . 

;ia»qiii«i *i'- 

therein In faror of Uie plaintiff for thid emount. Tbe defendcat 
brings t>» eae* hor«V appeal for reriew. 

Zt la insisted that the eontruct wns not i»ad« with 
plaintiff, bat with "Lord Lina* and that plaintiff had no Interast 
in the rontr»ot or its perfermanoa other ti an aa an a^nt . ^a do 
net As,rf)'» with this contention. The original cflntrnct itmde oa 
Vay 1S« 1916, and known as ;/D44, was aodiflsd on June 7, 1916, at 
the r« Quest of defendant so thiit the contract hatwean the parties 
hecune as shewn above, the d>^f«:ndant did not fomally sign either 
of the contrfnots, but that ha did acoept them and th»t the plain- 
tiff acted upon this ^icceptance ther^ csin be no doubt at all under 
the eridenee. 

The defendant testified th^rt in © oonrpraation with the 
agent for plaintiff he rnxB infonaed by him th»t "Lord Line** had 
the Testiel vspmat desired by d«»fcndant »nd th t this agent naa»d 
the rate for the uhipment wiich he, deftndant, aeoepted. The 
original ormtract proriiied for the ahlpsient of 800 tone of materlsl 
and at the request of defendant it w? a no modified thrj,t 400 tons 
of the material Wua to be shipped at • later date. 

Ifw teotiawmy, doutiownts trnd oorreapondence introduced 
in eYidence touching thie controreray between the partiee are too 
Tolurainotts to indicate in this opinion. We are convinced, how- 
erer, thwt the plaintiff in good faith was »t all tiMss ready to 
•OBtply With the terms of the cnntroct and that defendant's 
liability thereunder is a conseq<»ence of hie failure t ^^ cmsply 
with its tf^rnw. The unoontradieted tentiaony is to the effect 
thiit the term "Lord Line" la merely indicative of a j.tnd of 
senrioe between the two ports. 'Xhere was no sudi person or 
entity in existence «.» "Lord ^^ine" and the defondent adroit ted 
•a the trial th;^ ha knew thnt he wae dealiag with soaMsfloia 




vf «ifi 

9Wmmot«6. with th« Atlantic Trauaport Ce^^any. At the tixM ef 
the br«aeh ef th« contract the plaintiff had executed it »o far 
»• it we>e posttlble for it to do ao end It gave tiaiely wftrnlng 
to defendant th&t it vtHtld be iaq^rasihle to delay the ahipnent, 
ae re que ted hj dffendiint, owing to the fact thai it would \m 
iii^o»sible to procure other cargo for the apaoe required by 
!«d aet aside for the defendant. The evldenoe ehdere th^^t the 
def - ndbnt never atteiqpted, even after thia hreach of the ooatr^et, 
to aet ftiside or abrogate the eentrstot, aa he continued thereafter 
te deal with the plaintiff on the aaauaptioA thf^t it t^aained in 
full force. He cannot, therefore, be permitted to rescind the 
eoBtract ia one part and affirm it aa to another. 

If it be aaeuffittd tliat the defendant in the stale ing of 
the contract dealt with an agent elie waa actini; for an loidia- 
eloaed principal, thia fact wnuld not reliete the defendant of 
liability under the contract* A c<m tract »aie by an agent on 
behalf of an undiscloaed principal may be the baaia of an action 
by either the undiacloeed principal or the agent, ^alaain t, 
mtchell . 46 111, 79, 

In oellers v. Greer. 172 111. 55??, the ^uprene Court 


*It vill be obeerred th t appellee did not 
algn the contract, and hence it ie contended that 
the oe«ntr; ct ie not Tmitual. It appeara, however, 
that the contruct wae delivered by Morria Siller a 
appellant, to appellee, on the day it was executed, 
andappellee accepted the ccmtrx^ct and agreed to 
ita teriBB and ccnditiona. The acceptance of the 
CQBtruct by appellee ack.<«!nting to its terme, hold- 
ing it and acting upon it as a valid inst>^ument. 
Bay be regarded as equivalent to its formal execution 
on hia part, aa held by thia court in Johnson v. 
Dodge . 17 111. 433. and Voge^ v. Pekoe . 157 id. 339.* 

So here, the lack af a formal execution of the eontraict by the 

party plaintiff doea net preclude hin from a recovery thereon. 

The contract bore certain endoraeianita, antnig iiftii<Si 

la the following: 

ij hii^tii 

jLitiiU arli i »tiv 

51 SI? 


"This contract it nade subject to oonditions 
of act of Congr«:s&, «to*, including attached war 
clmusie, end is further conditioned upon the een- 
tinuftncc of tbe oteamnhip C npnny'e aervloc In 
the sailing of Itfi ^X'saisisrH,'* etc. 

K«ith«r thia^nor other proYisiona endorsed thereon, under the 
circufiitstftnces of the case, gave the defcmdant the right to 
abrogate tiie contrtict* The Above mid other conditions in the 
contract pertaitted a cano<:ll&tion of it on the happening of 
wrtMin, definitely expressed, events* ^e think, when thi 
oen tract is interpreted In the light of the business of the 
parties und of the time wl'ien it V(>8 entered into, it cannot m 
said that the plaintiff could arbitrarily "for eny reHoco* re- 
fuse to perform the service required by the o<mtmet. Con* 
et ruing the provision quoted with another jA^ovieion of the 
contract, whieh is as follows: 

"if At any tisn in the jud^tMmt of the atean> 
s^ip Coiapany conditions of war or hostilities, 
actual or threat<»ned, sare such as to state it 
unsifitfe or in^rudent for its vessels to sail, 
tho sailing of auch veatsel or vessels a^y "be 
poistponed or CHneelled." 

we are of the opinion that the eontract w;.s not rendered unenCoree* 

able by reason of these provisions end conditions. 

In deciding the esse of the Kronprinzessin Cecilie vs. 

Ottaranty Yrttst Cp «. 344 U. ;. . 12, Ifir, ^UBtioe holmes eaid: 

•It follovvB, in our opinion, that the doouisent 
(contract of shipnwnt) is to be construed in the same 
way thet the smmb regular printed form would be o<m» 
etrued if it had been ii^cmed when no apprehensions 
were felt. It enbodied sioiply an ordinary bailnent 
to a oonanon carrier, subject to th«i iisplied 
exf^eptions which it vQuld be extravagant to say were 
excluded bec@u»e tijey were n:^t written in. Business 
contra,ot6 muet be construed with business sense, tuB 
they naturslly would be understood by intelligent 
nen of affairs." 

A contraot whieh eon tains a stipuUition excusing 

* party thereto froa absolute pctrforaianoe in chso of an 

eaergency is not thereby rendered void far lack of ssituality. 

13 Corpus Juris, 337 - (187). 


HeTerelbl© error w'>» not co«aBltt«d \»y %h» trial 
Judge in hi@ rulings on the admission of ovideneo. ^&t» 
•Yor doubt we may entertain »s t<^ th« Hdmlssibility of « 
certain docuft*fnt objeeted to, tho error in admitting it, 
was hfjjraleoB; there oan be no dmibt on Xite. whole eyldence 
tliiit tie Judgr^^int of the trial couzt vhs correct. 

Th£ Judgment ef the Vunloipal Court will Tem 

iiH • 3521t\ 



AiU'rM. mm cvmrr comv 


UAUIK hirxmiAXi . ) 


*:iu jUiJTics imy>* uBnymire tiot cfiuios of tMi court. 

f1a« plftintiff brought ao action on ttn in»urano« 
policy i sou Ad by 4«f«n<umt %o hor iiusband* joirm lliuitislc, on 
!^oYO/%b«r £»• lttI5, Znoured diod l^ay ^1, 1V17. 

A (tofenoo soil up Ijr ploft to the notion on tJa« pel ioy 
WK» thot toy lt» tormo tiio ijolloy did not take of feet if before 
ite tlAtA Uno npplieant hud boon rttj^t«d lor i.nsurano« by any 
othor eojBpany, aoooolatlen or oooioty; that insured h«d boon 
rejected by the JNicple'e life Xneuranee Cottj^any of Chioage be« 
fore the date of the policy^ and Vimt the policy here »ued on 
n«Ter took effect, 

Oth»r queetiona argued in the brief a of oour.ael 
v^ieh ariee under ether pleae filed in the oauee n« d not be 
diaeueeed in thie opinion for the reaeon that ee are ocnT*ttO«4 
that the plea aboTe ref rreu to ueta up a good defenee to the 
action brout^t by plaintiff and titat this aofenee ^Ma proved by 
the unoontradActed oTidenoe in the ease. 

The eeoond page of tne policy introduced in evldenee 
contains the followini; prcvioiont 

*?hie pelioy ehall not take effect if the Ineured die 
before the date nereof, or if on said date the ineured ie 
net in sound health or if before ite date the Ineured fiaa 
been rejected by any other ooaapany, aeeoolation or society. » 

And en the third pa«e thereof appears thle etatemwnt: 

"All st«ttt»«nt« amd« by !;.« insur«d in the ftipl lent ion 
•hall, in tiift stbaenttc of fr«ud* b« deA^ed rei revontationa nnd 
a*t warranti.wti,'* 

Tfe« •vi^lsna* ii)troauc«d on the triHl auc-w* tnat Ui« 

n}/pli6Stioa Made to defena«i»t by ln»ui>«d for insuranii* »«• recoiled 

by it fiov«Bib«r 23« L915, Tttis imii a j^rclisainiiry »|>plicftiiOB 8»«d« 

Uiroagia. one of d«feudaQt*s &««nt». on ^ov«ttt»<r 29, 1V15, DT» T. J, 

All on* i&«dicftl vMBEiinnr for defondant, exatasiincd in«ur«d unA on tiae 

applioation Rpp«»«tr9 tho followiaK question and an»w«r: 

"%, ««r« you <nr«r rejt^etea for inruranoo in uny co»« 
pany, ftHAoclation, soeicrby or ledge, or did yeu 
«fv«r apj^ly whim the poliey waa not iaeuadV 

A. *;a • 

in ti],i9« the ragular appll cation, tha insured agreed 
that the »n»^«irB tande hy hl» therein were *&at«rial to rltks, aipd 
any untrue or falee etnten^ent or 9LnamisT9 anisde to the eanuaining 
phyi«ici»n, fi>. <-nt, ^t other p^^raon, »h»li male© the policy nttll ^nA 
Yoid." In the prellisin»ry applleation £rnda by insured he waa aekeA 
the (;[uettt4ori, «'H»Te yau erer bean rajtrscted or poetioned by this or 
any ether cu»pns)yv* and to thie <|ttc< h« anawared, "Bo," The ap» 
plioatloae were eigned toy the insured; a polloy waa iaeued theron^ 
irtaei4 proTided, at i&tated, that if h«fora its data tiie Ineured liad 
been rejected ity any other eotiiiii»ar>y, aeeoe lotion or eeoiety, the 
policy vna to be void* 

ST. Rachel H. Carr teetified that »he vaa ladiMl 

Director for the reople»e tlfe Inauranee Coeq^anyi that the Ineured, 

litueiak, nade application to that eompHny for insurance and «at 

examined therefor by Dr. I^rank J, Jirka, m^^dloal examiner for tha 

aojBpany, The application for thle inauranoa waa introduced in evi- 

denoe and the following »tat«E»ent thereon waa identified by tbe 

witneee a« b«!ring in her handwritlngt 

•Rejected «ov. 4, 1915, on aoo« «nt of tmeatlefaotory 
right lung * 3?urtber info nr,//»t ion - Vjy^'.ertrcphy of h^art,* 

inuMmxvo^ Ctrnftmy^ i.<iirti%itxmA X,iit «pp2ioat.lon ca»a« by insured 
for insurano* In Umt oeAp&ny and ti« te»tlfi«a th«t the api^lioa- 
ti«n ^Fa» rttj^eted toy th# ec«tpa»y on lloT«n1»er 4» l@li», wid that no 
pttXley «f(8 «v«r isavied to >ltuel«Jlt. 

It ^H9 Ad»ltt<$d on th« trial tiuii i:iir. Jirk« would 
testify thAt OB |!!ov«at1»«r 3, 1915, h« ttxnj^inod ln«ur«(i for ln-> 
fiiuranoo in th« l^^«ople*t lifo Xnaumne* ConpAny; that Uac «Fplic«» 
tiou for ttiio inaairanoff tms wrltti»n on «» bliuik for^ of that eoH* 
y^any and filled o«t in the handwritinit of '•r. Jlrk?*; tj.Rt his in- 
serted the answers of Insured &• given to hla hy rituaiak* nnd 
that thia apjrllcation «aa signed )>y John Fitueiak* the insured* 
on tbe 3rd day of {;ov«i£>ter, I9lt, The uncontradicted evidenee 
tjaereforc »hot«re that jroiui litueiak waa re^eeted for ineurwnoe by 
the l'eople*a Life Insuraneo Company twenty diaye before hia ap- 

lloRtioB for Xnsujranoe in defenaaiit eoittptuiy was ree<uved by it 
and a daye before the policy tfaa iesued to iiia. 

Counsel for defendant MkV aided ue by the eitetion 
of a long liet of authorities in aupjpert of tiieir ooatention that 
the policy under the uncontradicted e-videneo in tke oaee «m» void, 
and it i» eu7 view that eiiether the statenento uade by ineured 
are to be r«tgnrded as repreeentationo or wttrrantiea heir proved 
falsity rendere the polioy void. 

J" K"y»ff ▼. ?iupre?ay Court , J^, ^, £, JP*» 1»9 111. 
Apr. 496, it 1« said: 

•If the anawera as to th»? other applications and re- 
jections whleh were clearly felee, w^^re only representations, 
tii»y Msre so hlgily iBjaterlnl toward a detc-railn.Mtion by the 
cowpany as to whether it would accert the risk th»t their 
falsity even if not fraudulent and *vcn without the exi ress 
apreiteent to *.h«t eff<?«t would r^miev the certificate null and 
void, but in our Judtissent th«ir correctness wASpfilH^iiy and 
expressly warranted in tuc <iocument wnioh by the/ierfi^s thereof 
and of the certific»te fcrsfsed a j-^rt of iiie oontraoit between 
the portiee, tiieir falsity for rcnson was a casplete dofenso 
to this action, • 

111, As^r. 42l« til* applioation contained tk« i}u««tlon» *'>^in7c you 
«Ter btt«n d«elin<»dl or poatponed tar mny lnsurane«<?" to vJntlcia tiie 

thff <iu.«iition whiftthet' t,ht» »n»w«r rjonntit-tjifcf^ii ?» nmrrwnty th» court 


«rv«n if It wf?re net ft *?iftrr»nfey but merely » r«j:r«- 
»entatien, i^ «ftiii «s«i«ri«l raid If It ria4 l»«en »asw«red truly 
would probably o«ir« led to auoii wn iniF«sti|rAtion »• would 
have oau*«U def«ttvi«nt to reject Uii» A^pllcAtxon." 

Th« Judipent of the A|.pell&t« ovurt In this OHoe w»« revera«d )iy 

tisie ilupreta* court (««« «i44 111. 3<cii9)* but oa tiie ground i.ixni. th« 

quevticn wa» not broad enou^^h to include frutermil beneficiary 

Aooioties, Th« ii^upreiae court deoielou does not (iue»tio» th« nound^*- 

ii'-as of tn« holding of th« App«Uate oourt tuat m falso 8t(it^abi«at 

of the Jcind under ooneiderstion ima raBtwriRl to Ui« riaks and aiiould 

have been ttnewered truthfully. 

court ssildt 

•Knowing that lie iiad ascde tr.e applicaticsn-^ h® was bound 
to isnow th»t it had either b««« rej??«t»4 or thwt it wa» penciing, 
and, if p«»ndlug, bla answer wa» Jikewiae f»l»e, * « v* *. «> « *» 

■J" n. etcher y, Isnyikcra \ If e ^^ 0_c,, 119 tl.V. 3. eel, 
the eyplioant at»t«d ti*et tie h«d e)ppll«d fcr and hnd not been re- 
jected for life 3.n»urftnce, «nd th€ court m.i6.: 

"AJiauftlng that »j.i,lio«nt had been told he «»• p»etpcne4 
for »notuer exs&ination, tne deeeaaed icnew at the tlsseh^ «ra» ex- 

SBiluoa Ui.«t ue hnd j^ade un application to the ^'ut. Kea, ?,. 1, Co., 
and that a poiioy Xiad not been issued, I'llu aaewer wae clearly urj» 
true. Mi» rej*cti«i» by anotlier eotapany vatt aoat ciateriai, Tiile 
waa a ol«ar breaou of earrajtity,'* 

Jrlalutiff la not aided by the n^a«s«rti,on in thai the 
•ridf^oe fttile to diaolooe that the initured knew of hia rejeetioa 
for tnuuranoe by the l^eeple^s Life inauranoe Co«p«ny that the policy 
vould not beeauae of auoh rejection booe»e Toid. letereon t, l?a n«» 

There ean )|« no doubt under the •vldnno* liiAt. th« in* 
•vred kn«« thnt he itade ftppllovttion for inauitmc^ eojE&«i veeke be« 
fore Ute policy in question wfte Issued to aim and he i&uat be held 
to o.nve understood that goad faith. In tii# Ab fierce cf kno^lt^dge on 
nia p^rt that he Imd been rejeowsd, would require iLi^ to dieolose 
to defeiidarit the f&ct of tne api,lic«tion. In Ui.% ordlnitry o»se* 
edaere the r^preamitation ie thet an applioant hes been in good 
bieiilth lirlor to the ffiaklnit of en ttpplication for in&urenoe, it i» 
highly impcrtajit that thi ineurer should be nprrlsed of any fftst 
within the^ knowledge of the npplioeint whioh would tend to aid the 
insurer in detersiining the truth of euoh etntfiaient* 0ood faith 
and fair d^^^ling ^ould require of euoh nprlicant that he truth* 
fully st«(te whether he h»d »|*pli©d for ln«ur«mee to or had been 
rejected by other Ineurors, And tuis kit sa , »a held by numerous 
authorities. w>. ether aueh atatetants be regarded as representa- 
tions or warranties* 

However* the policy in the present ease contained a 
provision that the policy was to be void if the insurer had ap- 
plied for insurance and had been rejjeeted by another in»urer. This 
previeion of tli« polioy is not in all resi^eoto stmilar to a warranty 
or A representation. It constituted an express unqualified agre^sent 
thnt the policy was to be void if in feat the in&ured >iad so applied 
to or had been rejected by another insurer. Whether this provision 
of the contract «j«v be said to constitute a concJttion precedent to 
the right of recovery und-^r the policy* that ia, whether it be neld 
that the contract between the parties nev».»r -ivent Inte effect, or 
whether the provision be regarded as a «?arr»nty or a repreeentetlon, 
the pletntiff » In any event, cannot recover. Chambers /. H, ^, ^. X* 
APe»n . 64 Kinn, 195. 

there le no merit in the contention thut the defensa waa 
w»ived by defendant for failure to file a sufflei»nt affidavit of 


m«rit«. ?h9 affidavit is clearly ci»f«etiv«, tout th« parties 
tre«t«d it «a sufficient at th« trial. Fe <«etlon was a«»4s to 
strilce it from the fll<»s And the i^artics proe««dad ta trial as 
thou«:h th« affidavit wer« auffioient anfi tb« i.l««<lin«» ssttlad 
in th« oauea* Undar the clreuiastnnens* th« ebjaetlon te the 
affidavit cajBff toes lat«. } ]! l^,^J^ ig ▼• jr.oonay , 20' 111, Apv. -ilS. 

iftifttrrar ths daf ioitmoias of this affi<iaTit, th^ 
eould hav® >j««n reredied by oalling» in aowe siAnnsr* the attim* 
tion of the trinl oourt therato. 

In vif>v of iMiiat iofts baan said above it wa« error 
for the court tc instruct tha Jury timt th«y ati^iit taka intt 
ooasidaration whether the insured knew of hitt reject xon fer in«» 
suranca by another comp&ny. 

A siuch disputed question of fact as to mievntsT an 
officer of the def endaut added a provision to the contract by 
the use of a rubber staatp after tbe death of the insured, need 
net be deterr.inf>d here. This question in any event was for tha 
Jury, «s th«^re was a. direct contradiction in the evidence with 
rffsp^ot tc it. 

The 4ud|!W«^nt of the County court will b«» reversed 
and Judfinf?nt of n i^ oapiat entered hf*re in fsvor of the defend- 

BKVJBHSKD Am iM'^xmr.w? oy 

, :■ ;»«; 

380 . 2Ba|9 

SAMUKL OALLlck, / 2 X O i » A* O O 

.^Appellee, ^ 

App«al fron 


\ / 

UunieipKl Court 

H. A. niUJIM, 

\ / 

Appellant. / 

of Chicago. 

m, jmtiQs 

wrmn DSKmiau the 


The plaintiff brought im action In tb« b^unicipal Court 
of Chie»go to recover of defendant tho oum of |600. Judgn^nt 
vat; entered in favor of plaintiff end defendant Ibringa the oaao 
here by appetil . 

In hie etatemnt of claiat the plaintiff alleged that 
defendant w»s indebted to him in the sum of $600, e^ieh aanunt 
the dt'f(;ndant hnd obtained from plaintiff by f»^laely representing 
to plaintiff that fee, defendant, wns entitled to retain this sum 
out of a check of i^lBaouri iitate Life Inauraneo Conipany for 
$5,007, which was draan by the coiopany in payment of an f »' unt 
i«e plaintiff under certain life insurenoe policies on the life 
of Henry Oalliok, plaintiff* a brother. In which polioiea plain- 
tiff waa named a« beneficiary. 

In the af 'IdaYlt of merits filed by defendant it ia 
alleged that the defendant is not indebted to plaintiff In any 
aum whateoeTer; tht; t lAiatever auma vere paid to plaintiff by 
defendant were voluntary payments f)ol> servicea rendered by 

The evidence introduced on the trial was in direet 
conflict concerning the circumastcnoes attending, and the 
reasons for. the payment to defendi^mt of the sum of |6C0, 
Riman, the defendant;, testified that he was a mloanizer and 
tire repairer; th«t he h»d no of flee; that prior to April 


S, 1917, he was a special Agent for ih« Kis^ouri ^t«t« Life 
Zavttranee Cos^any; that ht trimsaeted touftinta» for the etmgtPtKf 
with its Chic&go mana^or, iV« J. Laico ; th»t h« did not knov 
«hy he weis pj^lI^ the ^00. Briefly, the aetend-nVu poaltien 
iiertf is thftt he and pl&intiff had entered into & eonspiracy for 
the purpose of fraudulently procuring insuranoe xm the life of 
Henry Qftlliek, deeotised, ndiois the evidenoe sho^e had at different 
tines, both licfore «nd after the polieies were iaeued, atteiqpted 
to ooflBBit suicide; that the $600 was paid to dnfendaat in pur-> 
suanoe of cm iimoral end illegal »(pr«€aent« The pl&iatiff denied 
that he had entered into any conspirt^cy with tlie defendant end 
it is shoim hy the evidenee that when the policies in question 
were first i .^ued tiie insured nssaed his, insured's estate, as 
benefioiary therein; th^t sea»tifls the rf? after plaintiff was 
sohatituted In the polieiee »s beneficiary. 

An exaninetioB of the record emiTlnoes us that the 
trial court wac fully authorised by the eyldence to disregard 
the testivoay of the dcfendeat. The position of the defendimt 
is th^t as a result of the oonspiraey hs recfsiTSd of plaintiff 
tite auiB of $60n. It is not easy to understand, under such cir* 
ouBtatanees, whiy (^ofendant denanittd from plaintlf so isedsst 
s sum. If h« is AS innorsl as he eonfeesea himself to bo it 
is hurd to beliOTe that he would bo sntisfied with such a snail 
share of the plunder. His tostiawny is unbolierable f rr other 
reusone; it Is directly ocntrsdioted in train particulars by 
the p^<<intiff and by w, 3, Laka, lianagor of the ln^tual Life 
Insuranoe Coaqpony, as also by Snt, H. Holies b. Assistant Cashier 
for the Chicago Union Bank. The evidence shows thnt the 3600 
w&s paid to defendant at the Chl«a«o Union Bank en April S, 1917. 
Defendant testified •! reoeired $60^ throujpt f. J. Lake that 
had belonged to Saa Oallick. Ho gaTt m a slip and a bank 

mtu i 

vtd if^ 



deposit to ^jr naMi." Eoferring to the eheek for $9,007 defoBdont 

ttBtified ho turned V^ia csheok Imok to Lake on April 2, 1917/ 
and *a deposit of |dOC «&» nade to ay credit in ttae Union Bank 
of Chien^o« X know who Butde ih&i deposit; it vne v. J, Lake. 
• ♦ • I do not know -vih^i the #600 wao for.* 

The eTii^ience ahows that iiax' plaintiff end his wife net 
defendant at th«! hnxxk on April 2, 1917; thsit defend/:>nt had, two 
or three dayn prior thereto, denanded #600 of plaintiff heforo 
he, defer dant, vould turn over the l&.OO? check to plaintiff; 
that plctintiff vigorouely protested againet asaking thie paycjent 
ar<d refused to pay any mtmey to the defendant; thot at the awet* 
ing ht the benk het««en the p«rti«e a violent dieeuseion arose 
as to this payatent; that ^rs. Galliok atteirspted to wroBt the 
eheok from Hiiaan*s handis snd that Otilliok, the plaintiff; was 
foroed by the persietent conduct of Rinan to turn over to hl» 
|€00. ;. J. Laice directly oontrudicted the testiiMny of the 
defendant ae to the paynent of $600; he denied th&t he delivered 
a depoait Blip to Himan or that he depooited any money to Rioan's 
eredit in the hank. Holnee testified th^vt the slip was written 
hy hln, the witness; thjtt it was in hie handwriting- 

The evid^jnce shows elmiet conclusively thnt Rlncun, in 
direct denial of his duty as agent for the insuranee ooiq^&ny, re- 
fused to turn over the check ehich belonged to the plaintiff srd 
that by conduct which RRounted to durese he coaspelled the plain* 
tiff to pay him the sum of $600, 

Ihe Judgnsent of the Vvuaicipal Court should b« dad it 
le afflmed. 


i ] 


■i JUi^ 




at 3 - 'A5Q79 

VAX KXa^:^. 

miKois 1/2 16 I. A, 630 



};cf*ndant ftppiwls tvom a «l«or«ie «nt«r«d mgainiit nla 
a« the QMfniiv of pr«8kiaca Ruml>e>r«<i 201;;^ Jouth iialnted iitr^«>t. cui«* 
c«£:e, re^truxtiktiK their u»m in violation of oertain aootlona of 
an aot entJitlod. "An not rafeartllRg plaaaa uaad for puri-osaa of 
lawdneaa, aaalgnatlanii or proatit^ution, tc deelare %h9 aamc to be 
public nulBaDTtoaa* and to provi.a« for tiio ssora afioctUMl 6uppr«s- 
aion thereof* " {Saaslen lawa of 1915, p. 571 j, smd enjoining 
th«»ir uae for ony purj>OBa fof tu« period of on« year, 

Tha i^recfilaea inyclvadi "v^re us«d aa a hotel « tha 
floors )tbo7a th# firat being badroona ana ^h• firat floor usad 
aa a restaurant, "fa« r,raYi»s#n of tha ohnrjrr in tha to ill la that 
the j»rewi»ea were weed for th* purpoaca cf lewdneaa, aaalgnntion 
and proatitutrian, an« ecn»a«juently conatltittwd a nulaanea within 
the aieanlnf!; of th'^ act au£r^, 

in dateri&lninjK the queationa of fact before ua «a 
■hall aaa^juae that the court h«ed(»d only evi.lenoa pertini^t and 
unobjeotionabla from « le^al ata&dpolnt, and in our review of 
mxeh eyidanoa we aiiall inoluda the eyidenea i,roff arad by dafend* 
ant but r«4«oted by tr«e ciainoellor* aa the acuaa appears from the 
atate< f>nta aada by oounaal when objecting to the Chimoencr*a 

Wa think tha admlaalbla tvldenea proffered by de- 
fendant, both that heurd and that excluded, abundantly auatama 
the aaaantlivi avert, ante of the bill (excepting aa to th@ roHtfturast 

floor,) Tlie very naturft of th« eYi;i«ne« of d«?f«ndADt is oalf- 
oenviotlng. yj* kn«w tB« illicit ua« mhA* of t^i^e h«tiroora« and 
their ni^'rjtly oceup]^>tlen by Tfoamm of the atr«et nrhn larevl their 
K»le fsacorta to 4«f flfndant»» •hotal" fe»r ierional «nd l«i?d pmcti- 
ce». Ho knmw that the ferule hnbituoa of his placo wore rrooti- 
tttteo. &nd hio Rlleged vorcis of a»ution to ni9 ^seployoQ* not to 
»d^it to tho plnoo vcmen unaooojH|!>Ani«dl» and only tno9« of »a»*ar<»d 
roapeetAbility imo cime aoeoxapiuiied by a i^alij <2aoortp bctrMyo 
kno«le<lac by dojfena'int of the ii:»i«ertil practloee wiiicli tueso trao* 
oi^^nt fi!'?ri -sioiJien guoato ^sero aocuatomeci to influl|^:«* in. In the 
i>edrc':->j»ia of lila Iw^el, ssad tiiat ^-«iaxi .sran *.he yurpoao int«n4ed «ho» 
they wero anga^??d. His nonteatioa tJiat hs *ma al\?ayB -msioaa to 
con-^uot. the i<>8tA)»li!ihia<int aa ft reap«otAblo plaeo is Dot at all 
conTlrtoing in %he Xijjiit of the strong t«9ti»CDy in tho r«oord tlaat 
tta« bedrooms of Uiet hotel wero continually ue«d for lff"*d purpoaoa 
nnt that levidnpaa *5.u ^haro untfor?aiXy jraoti.-*od, 7ws*th«yi^iora, do- 
f«n^»nt»a duty •m>u not fll;i«h*rg«9d by an ftitea^t to prov«nt tha il- 
licit rrfMjtloaa indnlgad upon hla profsisea, b^teauaa tb« proofa 
daaonatrrte t'j^t mioh ifei^voral j»rfietic«a 'sro not uArttvXy oc'.>«sionakl 
but continuoua smd thttt »ejfiil oc!<mp«ition t««a tho oxoeption and Ijsa- 
»«rn3 ti^<»> Kule, 

Thle oanuluslosi in no ^my oonflicta '^Itij th« ^oldin^; 
in i-eo^-lo t. i^idth ^ ii76 ill, ii56, that "im effort i« «ooa faith 
t© abate the nuiaancw «»ilJ prevent « decree to ciosas tiie jl^oe," 
beoauae fro* the Chancellor' a finding wa asuat eaftone that ho did 
not bclisYe the effort asade, if any, to abate Uxe nuia&uoe waa 
made in good faith or at ell, we are Inclined to t&k*' thia Tiew 
of the situAtien fro» all the faota and circuoetancea uppearing in 
the record, 

fbe netiee reqwircd by aee, 2 of the eot aupra to h& 
aerved on tue owner of pretftiaea «rh<&»e a nuiaance of the oharaoter 


••t fortu in th« e&rri«d on, i» »aid ia b« lavuffioient 
«n<i not in cc»j?liano© wiU* the net, in U-»t tii« pr«ail»e» wli«tr# 
iha ttulaanea ftxldts in net accurately »*t fcrth or thft c/U(ir»ct«» 
od »u»L nuisft7j0« »uf f lol<^ntly 4«fine4« 

We find ae n^rlt Id tula cont«ntioa. The form of 
n0tle« us«d ie th«» mui« us %h« on« ftpprowd by this oeurt in 
yocple V, lAa<wber |j;, 202 111 . At>p, 63, 

a«o, » of thp »qt 8UjJf« provides thi*t "nothlnjK In 
thie Ret conttilned sHall authorise any relief re«pootiiig tuny other 
apartsient than Umt In which euch n nula&rice «xl»ts," Thie eeo- 
tion, we think, under thf- proof • clearly precludes tixe inolxtiuien 
in the decree of the restaurant on this flret floor of toe premises 
in fiuestion, ho lewdness or preetitution of any cu&raoter wac 
praotieed in tjals restiuirant &c X&i aa the proofs shoe. ;>ec. :> 
supra was undoubtedly intended tc Kc.e<st a situation comparable to 
the one presented in this oase. The aoral part cf the establlshr 
aent is not to be condemned «itu tne It^^oral ^art. in the restau- 
rant there «ms no nuisance to be abated. It ia in oYldetice, wltii''' 
cut oontradxotion, tnat a large trade with the buainess people of 
the neighbcrneod was transacted in this restaurant, particularly 
at the midday. In this part of the presUsea th«ire was no evidence 
•f iflu%eral prac ices. There gastronosiieal appetites only wnre ap» 
peased, not aexual nppetltes fliratified. The latter practices iirer* 
confined to the bedrooiBs en the aeveral floors above the restau- 
rant. It was therefore, in our Jud|^>ent, error to include the 
restaurant in the Injunotional decree. 

The decree also provided that the defendant 1»e -pttr* 
petually «nJolnad froa maintain i^nit uny tiMon nuisance arithin the 
Jurisdiction of the court. This was in accord with tue prayer of 

the 1>111 , «nd In t<»x«« re«train« defcncMint from malntnlning Any 
suoh nuisttnoe ofithin Cook County •» tmy s»r«isl««a or rl«o« within 
axioh limits, 'le p yl g v, Kin£» SHO HI. 462, Is aufio-pity suatAia- 
Ing thla yHTt of the decree, for a tran«gr«»8i«»n of it d«fend- 
ftnt mny b« puni^ah^d a» for n cont«5jpt of oourt toy iJBprieon»ent in 
th« eountjr Jftil, as ms dene in the King oast »apr» . 

Kcr tksss reasoBS ttie d«cr«e of th^ Circuit couVt is 
roTerssd and th« oauss is rsaiuadsd wit^ 4ir«»eiioni» to that court 
to sctor a deorss in sabttttuics auou as tiis one in tne reoord* 
elio^insting Uicre/roi^ja !.hfc> restaurant portion of the pr<^i0«s. 


242 - 25119 

a corporation, ) I 



KUI}(^U:H LKDJ^ISR and iiAMUBl, 
LKDIESR, trading as 3.:KI)KRKB 


aiei.A. 631 



This i9 an appeal by defandantt from a Judgment 
against tham In favor of plaintiff for $588,59 rendered on a 
trial before th« court 'Without a Jury. 

It it etrenuouely insisted thnt the Judgm<>nt in 
not only against the vreight of the evidence, but that plaintiff 
failed to sustain its claini by that preponderance of the eri- 
denoe i»hich the law requires as a si nii qua non to a rftoovery. 

Defendants purchased of plaintiff 5835. lo^l g^iillons 
of "Fairlawn** whiskey, defendants say at i^l.tfd a gallon and 
plaintiff says at |i2,0S a gallon. Defendants paid for the whiskey 
at the ^1.95 rate and this motion is for the additional ten cents 
per gallon. 

Yhere ia evidence on each side of the case which 
would, standing by itself, support a finding for either party. 
It would serve no useful purpose to set forth these dual ooaten- 
tions. It ia patent that the evidence en one side or the other 
is in its controlling feature - the price to be paid for the 
whiskey - untrue. The cause was submitted to the court for trial. 
The trial Jud^e saw the witncaaes, a privilege not open to the 
OotEUrt; consequently he was in a position to observe thrlr manner 
and conduct and frora buch observation to Judge of the credibility. 


falrriesa« oandor, lutelliiH^sntie or lack of th«>tt qualitieis in the 

several witnesses and clxerafrcifi to det«r»lne wAieii witnesses were 

tlie i2iOSt wortiiy o£ belief und to give credit acoordingly. 

IPreponderanoe of evidence cannot ftiwsys be deternained 

froM the numljer of uni^npeached witnesses testifying en one side or 

the otiier of « particular case, jrreponderanoe may rest xn the 

testimony of th« minority in uuuiiber of *i in eases « xX the court or 

jury bslierre such minority to ba wore credible and '■orthy of 

belief thon the gretiter nuaber of wilneuaes teetifj/iufc for the 

opposite party, preponderance of r^vidence ariaee from the greater 

wcighz of credible evidence, ^hiuh by s^^ch etight convinces the 

miiio -f its reliability «>.nd verity; sc in tne Indiant case a 

nnjcrity of tne ccurt agres- with tlia trial Jui^^e as cc where the 

preronrterance of tiie evidence feeta. sucfi a Judgment a court of 

xeview m^oaiil ha reluctant, to diiiturb« lor a^ aaid in Yreloar v. 

hwuil_ton, ii£i ill, 102: 

"ws have *sxaiJUM«d the testimony aiiG find it very con- 
flicting upon the material qtucstiena of fret in controversy, but 
we caniiot 3.ay that its weiitlii, is clearly axia palpably ag;*4.nat the 
decree of the court, unless we could say so we v;c=ul d not be jua- 
vified in xaverain^ the jud,irt«nt an; decis*," 

>Oa.ile soAe minor virors are found in the record in the 
court's on the adciiasicn of evidence, \.hijy were favorable 
to defendants and therefore do not affecb the oonciusion at «kieb 
we have '>i r ived. 

The judfgcaent of the Municipal court id aff iraica. 

Kr. iresiding J'ustiee HcSurely <?.ie»ents» 



Z&a - 261 6{> 

by next frieadi, etc.. 


tiei.A. 631 


) Ai/i^EA^. 'mm mi'^mim count 
J oy COOK cc-uirry. 

COkl^A.hY, a oorporatlen, / ) 

Appellant. ^/ i j 



Ik nn RCtior. for per»onal Injurit* plaintiff h&d 
judgment en tiie fordict of ft Jury for |10,D0C, »nd defendant 
%ric£;9 th« record h«r« for r«Tlew. ^ 

.defendant «r|.'U<?a for ravffirswl the failur® of th« « 

oourt to dir«ct a verdict fcr tt;ie defondant »t the o3o»« of all ' 

tJae eTirteoce, th«t the preionderatln^; weii^iit of iii« ©vidence in- 
hibits A recovery by d«f«namit« and iffipropev argvftent of plain* 
tlff*a counuel to Uie jury in hia do sting «rgua«nt. i 

As no questions arise u^oq the iXiKadinga, ^e will 
neither set lu^m out nor discuss t^eu. I'he liability, liowe-ver, is 
precliceited upon defendant's negli«^<tnt and improper aanbieesbent of , 

its car 8t tJae time pl«^intiff w«s injurea. then defendant &oved ; 

for so iniitructed verdict the oondition of tbe record presented 1 

queetionu of f«et proper to Toet aubieitted ic the Jury. j 

the accident occurred in the city of Tlue island, an ' 

urban cocia>unity adjoining chiongo tc the ecuth, en its principal | 

north and south business street., known ps Mjstern firenue. the | 

place of the accident was about three blocks acuth of Uxe principal 

east ^nd west street in niue Island, the business section of "eatsxtt ] 

aTenue extending north »nd south of the place of the accident. la '■■ 


the vicinity of tne plAce of the accident is a canaX, across which • 
new bri(%e had fcr some ti^te been in prceess ef construction and was ; 
not then fully completed. The ro&dimy was in a disturbed condition 



in mnny pLttoftft. During thtt construe tion of the new bridge across 
th« Oft/i«l <i«i'end«nt itiii,d operattd 3C£i£« of Its c«ri» (»r«r a te:^)po2-«r7 

bridge wtiieh ecnn«ot.«'«i Kg*at ara ftv^aue Borth an4 »outh of tJa« eanal. 
TMt tcasiporftry "brldfj* was u:i*«d g<»n#r»ny for all sorts of Tehioulav 

Iljftlntiff worked &n n. fseehawic at :?e«t Fullasan end 
«a» fcccastcsed tc pft»« over \he te?sj:erary bridgt two or tiUr«e 
tia«e a w«esk in the eTenlng »ft©r hi& mrk. but f(?r several days 
1>cfere x^e aocideut Jue u»d not passed taat wtty, during vhicia. tio^* 
defendant eosamenoed operating so«&a of its cario !::v«r tne »ev 
bridge, of vribicii fact neither plaintiff hot i*.is coapa^ion of that 
evenisg imd any icnot^/led^e, hotn teitifying tlxat tiiiey supposed the 
care iRer© atill boin^, operated over tiie t«ssipo«ary bridge. 

It is eo&oeded that the night of the aooident was 
eteray* tLut the wind blew strongly, ^ita sleet* and th»t every* 
t)Uii£ vas a«turat«!d «ith moisture. The oar wttioh atruek plain- 
tiff o»at« frosi the woutheaot over the new bridge, »h«jreae on 
previous occaelons when plointlff was in >'lue i el and the c&re 
oaac over the temporary brtage fr«» the southwest, At the tiioe 
of the Bocident there were a nu^eber of flaring torches between 
plaintiff !)nd tl^e approtiching oar, mna it is contended tnat tlie 
headlight of tne ear was burning diii^iy «ind «a« rendered obscure 
to pedestrians oroeaing itc path by the brifmtneae of the light 
froffi the torches. 

;.:)efendant ulaj^a t£,at the point where plaintiff n&9 
•truok by the oar r*«» not a crossing for |^». Bo tiiie 
ae it caay, it is fairly inferable from tlie evidence as no en- 
vironing conditions that therj>ath taken by plaintiff was as near 
to the usual oroseing as the disturbed eondition of the roadwaj 
at And around that crossing i^ade possible. 

In deter^sining whether plaintiff «as in the exercise 
of due cnre for his omi safety at the tijse of and iamediately 


pre««4ling tfi® aooidant, Uj« Jury ha4 a right to t«j£« Into oonaid- 

«ratlon all the envirotun^; conditianji »» cjiiovwi by titie evia«nc« * 

ttee r&ct Ui.^lL^ the £)l{^2it ^ms dHrk arid storay; tkas. ped«8triant «•» 

tht*reby (if tlitsy la f^ot w«r«) handicapped aofflfHflfh»t in mft^li^s 

thftir \my iacroBa the »tr®«t; timt plaintiff did not toow of th« 

oiimiifieU routing cf t.ii» <»e».ra frosi the t«Kupor«ry to the peramnent 

bridge; tfoey aight in this connect len also ocmaid«r th« dim head- 

litl^t on tii4 oar find th» flaring torch«» lj$ti»««n plaintiff and tha 

approeching anjt, and th®lr «ffaot ir* preventing {if thay did) 

plaintiff froffl diaocir«rin|; tha approach of the car In atifficient 

tiae to eaonpa contact with it, Tii©r« iu evidence ia thia record 

Oft the part of plaintiff which, if givan oradetnca by tha Jury* 

Justified tueir GoncXuoion that plaintiff waa in tha exeroiaa cf 

ordinary aara for hia own tiafaty at the time of nnd immediataly 

preceding tii« accidant, Aa aaid in ^orenap n v, I, C.,. , H,.« .f.o.„ y> l&S 

III. J^T, €v06} 

"i^hai ia dua oara depisndt upc.n anvlroning cunditicna 
f»nd SiJTLntlir.p» invclveti cMotcut «nd knowl eii^e BctuO'l or attribut- 
able to oti& or tii« oth«r of th«4 psirtiea, ThfTefore in tha in- 
»tfuit case it was fcr tha jur./, ia dateraining the question cf 
du**: car© on t.u« pert of j5aintiff to take intc con si deration 
hia kno-arl ^'dg:® of defandaj»t»» custom in operating ita traina 
upon certain trfi^cka. and whether in rsflying tiieracn he waa in- 
jured, or %(i»X in failini: tc- t«ike other preeautiona fcr hi« 
aafety negligence wnn imputable to hiss. -Utii thaae f-i*.ct« in 
ifilnd and th<» further undisputed fs»ct dftfen;i«nt did not 
warn plaintiff of tha© in runnin^j ita traina tc tha 
north en the southbound track, the court could not say ae a 
matter of law that plaintiff was not in the ©xsraise of dua 
o^r© , " 

If tha Jury b«U«7ed, aa tnay indicata by thalr var- 

dict they did, that the preaance of the torohaa waa not auff loient 
to exouaa tha aatorsian** failure to »ii^ocv«r plaintiff, than the 
KOtcriaan was guilty of n«!t>,li trance in not Mrarnintf plaintiff by 
rintaBfe Ui& ball or atiierwiisa notifying hia of tha apprcaoh of 
th« our, aud tha Jury waa Juatxflad in ac findiung* 

i/a think the Jury waa umrrantad in CimoludJLng tnat it 
waa the iuty of tiie BOtorMan, in th« condition of the roadway, to 
anticipote that p*d«8trlana might be crouaine^ at tJi© plnoa wh«^a 

I c- 

plaliitirf crested, and tn«rftfor«, in tJa« «x«rola« of dliiiJ^eao© 

til© Inw required him tS b« ©n the Icokeut for tu<«8, ana taat hia 

failure ia Uuia regard w«9 neglig«nott« ( C, C> Hy. Ct:> . v. Ttiotoy , 

or not «-— 

19fi Ill« 4lt;.) Wh»txier^tiio spat where plaintiff aroM««d waa cr« 

din»rtXy the usutO orosain/^ jJiic*, tii«? diatarbod condition of th« 

roadvfty* knowledge of vthiah in imputr-bli? to defomdimt, required 

the ear to b« c.r®rftt«'d witii •xtr«»?» csre and enutlcn tc Hvoid 

running ft^oinat i?ed«8tri»n» wio Hsigtit reasonably b*« «xpt.'ct«d to 

croii* ftt tiiat point, C., C. Py, ^o. v. Pnnaiccrc, lVi» ibid 9. 

serious coe;pl»lnt 1^ eindt rec^arding stai«r.cnts of 

plaintiff** oouneal in his clooin^ arji?\i»«nt tc the Jury, the r»09t 

•«rl&u3 of wiiloh lij th« fcll&<!«ring* ^hleh «e find quoted in dafond* 

ptnt'a brltrf J 

♦'He it* » cripple and he oaa't an«w«r Ixia country** 
call «lth«rj and UA4»t in aometi^ing. At tiiii* very tiee ?rtien 
til© country called, he couldn't ano-wer, ho coulcin't answer,* 

It ie iiirged tiiat thia »tatft^«mt waa <«ntirely unwar- 
ranted and Wi.H uaX, only cal-j^ulated to but did inflams th9 Jury 
agaln&t u«f«naan-t tr> ite injury, and %kmt fmou aonauct <&n th« part 
of ]>laintiff*a Qoun»«3. la «rror calling fcsr a rev^renl of Ui« 

■m can hardly a£r«>e with this oontentKm, for ^me not 
thia btat«iM«nt one of fact patent t© cvary Juror? I>ld aot the 
Jurore ocgerve, at leaet m&^n plaintiff ^as on th« witni^ss stand* 
that ho wkB sinuo the linsb Tirfaleh be twstifisd h« lost as a reoult 
of tile aooident attributed to thf neglie«nc© of d«fen<iant*8 motor- 
«an't And waa it not cosj&ion lrnowled/s« that one who ia p^inuo either 
of hia lifflba is cjiaquaiif ied for active jalllti%ry oerviee'^ further, 
the record euo^B that jAaintiff waa of »ilititry age frcRi the tia* 
thl« country «ntered the war until ita glorious ending in ▼iotory 
for the arsia of thle country and the countriea with whioh it waa 

l^oreover, we do not think the aagouiit of the verdict 

•od Judj2:ra€»nt it aore than cofflr«>^9«tory for plaintiff* » iejuriat 
«8id« from B.ny saiitiaityK.tal cr p»trict4c conBi<i«ri»tioD, Aa » 
tttfrtter af ts.ct dlefcntfAnt dec© not »eriou»l.y o«»Bti»nd that th« 
itwRi-d cf dJytRges !• ttxcoaeitre. It wft.s in ©ccord with precedent 
th«t plaintiff's couiissQl ahnuld diacusa th« question of dam&g^m 
in hi« closing nrewafiffnt tc tho ^ury, for hi.« nfttural objeotiv* 
^118 thr> nv?s,r.J of adoquoto da.-ao.fiiaa fcr «it« client'a injuries, and 
ae tine r«a<?rd in all^nt aa to what »r6>im«nt, if any, counael for 
defendant sade on tije question of daRJHgeji, •avt do not Uiink it 
doea vlolenoe t^ preesdeni to asiauMe ti^^t tuft ^r^Msni-nxt of cooneel 
for plaiBtiff on tl^e que«tion of dAmuges in ol&axu^ hi» onse 'Mky 
b«Te been in a£;ew®r tc eci&e disousaion by defendjint'a oounsel of 
tb»i Qw«aticiii, and ffa«t2x«r or cot it ^m.» auoh answer i«« ^«4» t^ink, 
beside Ui« queaticn. It certainly cannot be a&ia u^t defendant's 
oc-a?itf>«l «&» not aware of tl^e fact that txie ir^^'^sticn cf CtSM»».^es to 
be awarded wrs tlie sioet icipcrtant one in tJie case aurjd he cannot, 
tiit-rofoie. b<!9 hold tc hrve been taken by eurpriae tluit hie opponent 
•rguil th«» luestinn of dara^f-ea In olo^inf;: the case. 

Jliacevering na reversible errcr Iri this r»*coTd, tiie 
Juid.Avflt^nt of t.h« Superior court is affirsad. 


352 - ii52].l 

Lee, ) 

\ i 


Appellee, ) 


OTTO ?, RK1T3, ) 

AppelXan\. ) 


Plftlntiff on a trial before the ccurt li^-d judgment 
Against defenoant for ^155 balance olalaed to be due for pro- 
feesicnal servioes rendered as a lawryer for defendant in certain 
jsatters set fortu in the statement of olaisi and aome cash dis<- 
burseeienta. Defendant brings the record to thiM court for re- 

The evidence is in sharp conflict and hopelessly in 
contradiction, atandinic; alone plaintiff's proofs support the 
finding and Jud^'iment. Upon the legal principles announced in 
an opinion in Tje llem an d ▼. Le^derer, general number 25119, hnnded 
down cotneidently tvith this, we ought not, in the ciroumstances, 
to disturb the finding of the tvlPl court. 

Defendant invoked the five y<?ar statute of limita- 
tions nftpr denying? i£ to to any ets|>loyment of plaintiff. The 
statute vas avoided by the pav'^ient of i^5 on October 13, 1914, as 
elaiiBed by plaintiff, which payment ^mts denied by defend«it. The 
trial Judge, however, gave credence to plaintiff's contention. 

l^laintiff rendered an account to defendant several 
times, upon which defendant made payments, /e tiiink frcui this 
fact plaintiff establiahed between the parties an account atsited, 
fts defendant at no time before suit disputed any of the itess of 
this account, but in apparent affirmance of the correctness of 
the claim made payments thereon. 

!>«fend».r)t profff^red •Tid«nce is to the value of plain- 
tiff's aervicca, set f»rth in hit atateuient of account, which th« 
court rejected. This, it is insisted, was error. 

?toe olaiit was upon fc ecu tract denied by the defendant. 
On the verities of the coutraot claiaied plaintiff oust either suc- 
ceed 01' f&il; therefore, an at Leapt to introduce a quantum meruit 
as R defense was correctly rulid out ee i.ct \;cing ars iuuue in the 

en 86. 

AS no sufficient rtRSCn fcr reversinj; the judgment of 
the kunicipel court appear* in the record before ua, it is af- 

310 • »46$X 


tion, <»t ol. 



. TRAIlTin, et 


00 OK (Xusnry. 

HARRIET H. LEAMING, Executrix ' j ^IfiTA fy ^ ^ 
of the Estate of Jeremiah ) ^ A ^ J- •-^. v3 O i 

Learning, Deceased, j-' ) 

•'...^'^ Appellee. ) 

In Juljr* 1913 » tiMt C&reuit Court of oooic ':»unt/ 
•Bt«re<s t% final Ammntit i^ fuTOi* ©f tJae 4«ff«iattekiiiti»» io a 
for«olo(ittr« »uii. itt thi%i ^e9»«#4la£ lite^rtlln^, »» Liqui^ysk* 

tor, £JL.iiij;i£^«atiD^d}!i a^4 <ir|i« 0t«4i;«ir «IW )me alnao lilnat «»t«jr* 
«4 titi«i/!»«lv®« tm »«*5(urity f©r «P9_«t8 »p %ist fs»00,0©, in 
th» d»e;m# d^iaaslftsitju tta# «t?i«plaii!wint«» Mil it w«» proif4<fli«4 
tlMt *th« ^.Di^laiiiAattt'' aHall ^i^ %h» «C'»t» of t»i» |»roo««4» 
liii; »iaa thuait' «jc«> outsort ls&u« ti»«r«l'or«* 

«Mit^ Ja« perforaod a«rt4itln »«rv4a«» a» »u«au Xo ^^sgr, i9c7, 
ti«© mua« <HUi« »n b«jror« Jmd^ff Kaiiojr« of th« Olroait Ctewjrt 
of Oook aoua^, a9*n tiw aotioa of aef«»a«iit fox « rulo 
OQ ocrttj»l«Xattat Uj f il» x,)m ^iu»i«r*» M«i»i>t «u3<i ijctis oourt 
•oi»f«a arj oxa«)r r<i9itl»g Vm^X it Aij^oajria^ tl«ii i>apA«r 
t« thff «ix;>irati«»i o^ &h« tors& f»f offla^ of J«r«Miah Loan* 
liftii «s UiMttfiif ill <?bftwn3»3fy» %H« ««14 «ft«*t«r i*i,.«i j»»rfojpafl«l 

©c«^«'n*Mititm mi» tu--- wj*:^ oi. ilicii, m,n'.i %iu\% Hiiia ami 
i^<? rait b« 41911^ ^*<^a UifiX-'?'j^s U-i^ ii«(&4 «li£jriS{ft«ii «?«ra xkaJL<ji 

m\m «t $1Q19, wit;"* t^it: 3al<»i*M of t^jii^'^' ^art a)»«i %ut la.tii>«r 
was t« "i^ii %yk3^ %h^ «#i^$ eir«.r te tk» U»Mti»r, IX m\» 

f>t«itta«8*" iSto Gl)«$tt(iU€>u %!£(» Mk4e l»jf «ttl^«]* jptArljr to the 

iir^M ir«fum*J;ea, to Ma »»<! tio jpi&jrt c^.f th« §1019 w%ii «$T«r 
i^aia to ;i«t«i«r X>««aijia«. I«itMii^ furlia»t •««!»■ %c imy« 
h^nn ^i5a<(i »3sfO-j% tim p^pmnl ai' iji^^&« «sa»t«'r'si fenti j^x-icr 
t© tat «itas«ri»<j of th^ finnl 4«w--« i.» Xh- oae«. Aftvr 
th« «x.p^x%tl'-»n of t^« i<f^3Pa oiC' effiisQ ei i^«i»»%«r l^ttailag« 
th« (M»u<«(» wa» s'^f'srrRa to ^«ka W. Sllin, itoutur in CS3»»* 
«»iar» KWit ia <tu>'» a«ur«« i^in f««e aa «A»t«7 ««?ir« t&:!Cf»4 
«« aiitts* YlJi»2f« ««itl! am ttj^p^sJl to this oourt Aliotris^ 
tsi« f««» Hi* i^ttftir iiiitt tmii thfti <»<ril«3r va« «ffir£iea. 

itiftyoh 10« X9li4, Xn %]&« sa««tntlai« J«JNiailah l>4»He-4j.»£ di»(i 

mtk4 ^&» vlAovt ^^ ttj;)^l'i«« lewroia, i94>ff ais »dX« b«n«» 

f ioiftjry «m«i aul^f ^ttjairisa »» «K«fautrl» ©1 tJa« «(itat«. 

Atr %h» €iiau» thf» 'JMiss-mi Gf %im CirQuit Court v»» 
«jrfifW»4 ty i^« 4noi«lcn of t-hife w&uTt, i»e e^i-tl/ietl «Oiy 

tm4*t «a> ii«ttlL<?£tit&t, «-n4 «n April 1$, 19%^, A ««.ti»fn><stiosi 
2»l«ae e:CT«iwift4 bjr tiv? a«,f«*naftnta ia %h*^% ftut^ urns 4ttl^ 

iXiur 4o®ca«n)» «x<90uiQ4 tt? J«^ W» ^liA« Mft»!.«r in Chin** 
««*y» Witt i'il.aii in th« Cl.ff<j-)ilt. -"^^urt, 1% «•««« that a 

«»j»tfes,r<ta in ttei* fJh«;n«5»r^ lt«<3K>*4 l#»li» th« c^ijrk «f the 

filed tiiU» iC'llji, «iaj}f etr Ast^ril, 1014. • 

«f tii« f«r«» ttf M,ii»i«r I»««kaljfi|| jmUl r^nacM^wMr UO, mil, 

(SlcrlK or tli« Clra^it ^urt t& t«x Ui«^ ««iid mm Gt ^.ICia 
ttii a»»ta la anSti fstrH^lesur^ itult, in tmmr af ft«ti<^ 

« «rit a4iai-mi9«ci %o %!»<.)< m^riti of '^:;&<>ie e^uat^, 41r«soti,a|; 
uiM xn m«9 ftAM mi<^ of ^icid »»6 net ^i& #iiM» i^ilrV 
A«ky» »»fi^0j? 4i«®atttt, to l«vy ti»« »«kMO on %h» »r©|>#jrty of 
ajppel luatii* fhx» writ »**» »*fv«i* oa h(iJt\,Xin&, its ULijui- 
^tojr, on i^«3«iao«r 91, 19^17 x&na en fa«ej;>^«til>a»h en ymT»jnb» 
«r^ 26, 19111^ X» U»^^ 1918 « the o«rtiri«4 oopitte of tihi« 
erdero ui tiuAii jo^rt la ttoo afttt»4'«i or tli« »» Ijy 
tJi4» oourt of «a« oydox ttlXewloc tii« I**** of Mfi«t«r SI io 
ikloft of the t^rn&kenurv a«^'4i^"9, w^cro filoii 1« th» 04r» 


mi^P^llt^nU^ th«? t»3rii tM^icjh ^abeenii>att«4 to iJs^ eh^riff 

iQT tJ»i«t '@l«fii!: if.%«c i%ua»JSL»a. On tkm »wm 4«grt $h ^ot4&» of 
t>i« «(^lioi%d?^ fax tt^^^i)^««, «£(4 eir93' o^ttj^^eiloti of a|i9«ll* 

«^nto» %^» 43».^t 4m!if»re4 &a ora^fr fi^uiaig th«t HaK^or t««M» 
4«(|« f«i'>« f*;iWi4i4'U?3^' ^ lilold, ima ■*>«<*« 0jP4ftjr«4 p**14, "eatd 

ih^ 9le.T}i «f thft ;SKtult Ct^ ri itc «^iMin4 Uie jr«eor4» ia so 
fur »« ?«>>«;y i^1^«iirot: a »«iiel'attVI&n of tbe <io<jf««, by aad* 
lag to tlio ottti^fnQtio^k picoo* tii» folJkovtiiig; *Thio 3«»r%i£'i«> 
onto 10 not JLatoadvU to iaolu4«t or nntinfy i\».»%9t J«r«9i«h 
L«ft»iXig*e foott )ifor |]k®3.9« irtaiiQii ^•'r « )>4»4m JS^lXow^d by th«> 

to I4i« uBtoriiis of *Cii» orutfr* 0» iii«? tmm^ «^«yt on ffio^ 

tion 01 the ooliaitor foi' a^?p«!ll«« tmd oviey ofcieetion of 
•j?i;*«il«iat», %h0 ooaxt «at«r«?a »rK>t^r osffi^^r r»o4ii.n^ that 
it it.|> p«>i!urlais tttAt J«krw&im.(A .u<s^%in^, «ie .63j«t»t«rr in akoijnaery, 
r«o403r««£ ««x"vi<3«o at<?r@ia» "wi^iok w>^ir<-^ f ixoigi e^xiiii 4U>Iowm& 
lilir tJ%«> fsourt at tjsc i«'u» of liOIS'^i ima it App^to'lim U«i»t 
•u^i »UM h«.{» QiS'V'Jrr ^«@»i |>aici, ami tmt ^'oirfi»i«lgi Le«^iai| 
4i«4 oa JiRmKiTy 3C# XSCli »jaa Utnt «|>p«m«*« in kin lioXo 
b«»iefiaXai!;;r tm4 tiit^*^ d.iJLy f{u«aifio4 oxodutrix of iiie eotiit* 
mm it cii^pearlng tluifs tJ^ d«oroo ontwrod ^uly S7, X9XS 
Wikn nftlr^ft<t oit »|ji»p'Oiil tmu tli«t*« ^>i« era«r ^lowluc tb« f«9« 
of tiiniitor Slli* wtto affirTnea 08 n-^j^aX uti4 Uict ti«rtAfi«4 
oepiOK of tivf ordOifo of ta« Ai»P«AXiit«^ :ourt' «f fl;i»lim »i»4d 
doojT'go u»4 «>U.4 oriler ^'aro tiiow asu Ui07« thiols ten dta^ 
l«uit iw>vit i»iw« b«tin'* on fUo witu tiw ol«sl6 of thfe aiarsfuit 
tJouart,* a» irtujulpofi toy outato*. ftnd it aps>«!ort«f5 tiuat 
M&6ti8ir L«aaia£*i» Sn&n 'im.'m m'V«r t»«Nf» 1^44 ms-ii th«^% 
»f|>oll09 iK ««itltl«4 to /e^oiffi iB«i4 «»i»oant Of S{«id 

f«jr -aenitt la a^M maXt ""for liw j^ro^otst^on of ih« effiottr* 
of ilii« QOaafta /m4 mi ooRte of tuit* nod ih« Untoilitir 
«f «(»i4 p«r«K»n» ii« ti«ouriV for <;jc«to }Bti» ^mocn* tiMmA 

tttif- %h9 »3rC irti wad d»>;ir«<»« Kat^^.^fo^ in %i^9 mknn tmd it 
«pji>«ttrintf t)%«t ^/ 7«A»eii Ith^rieof said rjLa.^p«nteA0k: AD4. 
3ittiiS«3r li««iwiw fi)»llj|£at«ii to pigr sm^ tmc all o&ot», ia»< 
elu4^titf ^»%<«r U«fmXnel*tsi tnma, a,M % v^mmn of th«» 
etatuto if. mmsm Mx& 4ttty of ttt« olork to tax th« oosito 
of «eULd ooit*, tiaa t)4Mt %hm »ukA &tmX^r htu» oiJlOfit diod. 
cmci it ttp:!**!^^!^))! ttet tl»<» oaid oootit iii«;r« |»r&<>erijir lUA^^ti 
V the isl^rk, la^Xuaing; tho f«€»i!^ of M«&t0'r LtosdxMS* "* « "O" tiitt 
taxing of «^i(fti \i^ %h« aX^^rk ie imrti^ Ap-^iW-nni,*' una it 
»9j;>««urlaK Uuit t^^ ttti^tuto of ,UliAolo uaX.«» it tise dut^ 
of tH« <3l.«rlc to io&U9 an oxaoutioa ii^aln»t tli« oofitipifian* 
4mt ttn4 >^th of th« ^^rucHS oateria^ th«rstti»«iv<s» a« ti«9u]N» 
iijr for w»t« or oi t^r of tii«ta, «is4 it «i9.i»««tnsig timt 
fbm liability its^ b«<»>%«r fixod protootiu^ th« ai^im of 
lAr<N«iAU L«ai^iMg asid that wpMiautioit fidt^ht i»»u« «rh«{i th« 
Qftrtifioa 96j^ of tl^tv (»;r.^ >r of tJaie oourt affirsuin^ tl»» 
aeorae of txi» Oir^it C»ourt w^» filaa in ft«d4 ootart ana 
it a^]»«ariim th»it tlia ««»« «aa ihmi un flX« in i»ai<i oi>urt» 
*it i« oru^ra*^ %luk% s^i<' ol^rle of t»i» ao«irt 4o iosue fortlip* 
with a S'aawVill eua4 axftoutloa i» uociio^daaoe with tlM Btatuto 
of Xllin<^ae «ii7«otitiK tha ni^vitf te ooll^^at a« oonta froa 
{ ooaj^tiainaata} th« ^«eter*» fa^o duo J«rafiaia)i Lmmaing* as 
fixoii te^ th« urmT of lla^ 2C, 19C7, at 1X0X8 «nu, limt 
«li«a ooXl«at«»4 oaid amMuat attalX b^' |>«ci4 oV'^^ir io au4 r^« 

Ui)oa ^Toitcr ;^^:}li3».ii«»a» « eoA'tltiftd 9^^ pf th« ^rmT 
9t skttlrtmnmi ftf ih<i d^arwe )»ivl'n«t i^««n 4uX/ fii^T'd im 
%h« 'vir«uit il^urit t» tsfx !!%«««$' L«w!»in||'« fnee ;»» 
o««t« i»^)9:Xxii»i %Jam mm-&A»ixmmt&» {til, I'it&frUX^Ht ^iu 33>« 
•«io. Z&) tm4 igia^^aat tl%»ir •fl>mritjr f<^r qo»%» or «it2»«r 
pf tii««t (iXi. ilHatutew oh« 3J&, ««^g* «iS} Xi ia furifeetJT 
|tiwi44»a in %h0 ff«oiiioa of tl» 8Uitut« laet rof«rr«d %» 
ibskt mimn 9u<sh biXi iSTor «9i>t» 00 «mi<v out «»a taxft-a ^f 
th* <»Xisxk ftna duO^ «o«?jriifi«r^ tmu<sr iJti«? fMml of Uir 0»urt 
»] )i« ^9iiV9r»a iA %im wilier iff «f tlM» pr<sp*iT o&tmiy* 
*J»« t»j5H»^ dssi^^xtti l^gri»«iQt froi^d th9 i^irii«tt iii«r«iiji ^iim,T&*iki 
if i^M^iwmt ftitiftiX net ^« «^4«< msaoraie^;!^* witiAin iliirV 
44grft Hft«r 8tt^ 4^!aam<i, tb« trJ^riff »lml], l«vy tib4» «««• 

pmrmen 00 aiM»T£pi«.1»Xe« * Acoo^Uiajt tp iiiij»t}i£!r j»p<»vi«ida 
«f Our «tatat#», Vtn^ <^«xk of t^jt<- Oirouit Qa^ir% mX^Mtt 
tLpcn »rti-^i»T t^Ai%i*.ti&u^, i&ttue » f«9i»1»iiX fd;r tii^ mulu 
r«i?r«««¥it«<i ^y *siifli«(r Ii.«iii»i»m* « f««»a •»* wK^y iia« 'w4t-"iiii 
•tiffin yt^arti'^ a,f%nr th« d«t« ot tii* af firuumet^ of tjw foro* 
aicsur« accri»#« (<!• A. IXiino^.* ^t«tttt«« oiv* >:£& »««• >U£^) 

Vntil %h«i vkiiutfi UMifi ii««ut«4 %o Master ham&irm %i^ tiMi 

pnt'^i^innm e'^ O'^r «%)/.t>ut«» i^4 tts^i <»ri«or fixing Mn f««» 

4urti> w^.n unyfttr B.(iti.»fX^4 el' r^ocir^ &» to ih« f«e« «Xloire«^ 
i^»t«]r l^a»i!ii£» lla^cT thfi! siatutejqr previuiomi rofftrre^i 

f<r9ft i««r0 aa^J|4»«t to \»« %4yi«<ii »b >iio»1i» sn^a.itm% the- <K»ni» 

««ijrt )ift(.irl«!ig %^fttm «luV fil«»<^ &)» t^ dirauit Qo-art, &i 
msiy %imi» wLtiAn »mmi y«Mr« «jrt»«r ti^ 4ii|ff ef the Arffixtck* 

H»««rd Book aa U: th« »«t4fiifiieti«m of ih6> il««ir(»« ckould a«t 

tiiivt tH« sffofQt of AKtiiif^lag It £(i» Ui tilt; eillGw<ii.n«fit of 

1^ t^«! a«f9S^ai«t vMM» rU«4 oa ihi^ X6th of that i^^enUi und 
•a« «xi»dut«a b/ MftMtdjr l^li* wtue f il«4 ca th^ 2Vth but 

in j}JL» ^£t&lf «aa «rf«r fil«^4, »t» far on tb9 r«oora •iim»«»* 
MLti ef ft«f tien pf ttiu aoer-)* un ili« r«oojMte» (»hfiultf not 
9«nifi«4 a«|>l».a of tmr »irei«rs <»r «if finBuagt<»« w«*r()< t'iX**d 

in iSin^ , l9X%t %)a» trial oo«2*t ^@m^t toitvffs«%md «it>i 

no »p»#*a had «»««« t«3t«a, ,|^|f|,,fffii:<| ^f "^Mif^^m^^m Im, 
MssJiJ^' Wl -^^- »a^l MJs^ Jb. iS22MI» W« Hi. l^. 

VJldttd hy th<:< atetuttf ^n«i «• ax^ of the os>laien Uutt t)i« 
frt>» nad i% is ib»r«»f0 7« iiffir$s«4. 


X ©tk^ \j tJ 


\ / ) 

App»'!^H.a%, ) 

€16I.A. 6 32 

aB« 31$miC^ tAtlAm 6«XlTrf*r«d tii« <sr?lRien of ihm 


fer ls5 u *Tit5.€at l«fe«e ©f e«rta4s |»r<a«4&«» for r-i>sia'arai-it 

j»»lpgaYiJ^ i9^1t*itt«a Ji»4^«iit 1« til* $«», ftf ^TSC» 

Oo Cstobftir 8, 1917 %'rm a^f-ej^^sfe js^ir'ld. th* acurt 

1917, iij *;up;;»«rt of «nit^ B^tite, fii«-a ^^a fe...ffi4^»it in mhX&li. 

t'm ^l%inti'fl"» i*s,-;d« the l©s.:»# to >ua.^> 4?i» i^ef ffodsint, sraowing 

ev«r>' S«««jg;3f latliin tifi«? t^rsi of t^ Xe«.ft»i3! *?• violntlon £»r tJie 
law* of Uxe rtat# of illiaoie; Umt it we© provided io ilie 

ttt« tiii8lRa»« iiii^ isiiriag ■t«&tisstt to the i^safef's ssithin tnirt^ 
t3C) it^K aft«ir tix^ G3B»i:«ig of e^ia %' th*? e-taie cr 



ftvest that ii^e Budiim^' ol&eiagi Xmf t» ^^u^i-rmll;^ #nfor$€'«i in 

Jtt€i,pg.^a?. fe« ©p«a«il ana- i«*ife giT»s t*r %^ dsfsmi^ott t© 

HS affiite-vin ©f si^s-iift. Plaintiff |.^«?n «ff«rs4 ia e¥i4«»o«$ 
thi^ l€-&«@ '^n^ It vmM t^S^%%M4 %y heth pgurii«s that tbe &4^!&uiit 
set forth lit Uie Siffid^iVit ef oX&i^ iti tk« #i>m ef I7SC Iie4 
B0t b«»n paid. fh« a«f^a*miit t^i^tifl®^ M^eeif t© Uw «ff««t 
t2iiii th« |3tr«9Miiis«« w^rm l£»ast«4 at the #«>r»#3r ef l^xfieea sjkI 
Otat« £itr«et«« wUi^a^; Ximx m» wmt int& ^€m««»ftl&» ef tJsiS^ 
&na jresg^la^ii %lm^n st l.ittX# t^v^ir iiic ^msutn^ va^^e^tiag tfw^a 

■£im%u,ixrun% 1>u$ia4Nig; tis£i,t k<^ e«rfi»4 sirXi^u &nii seld 0-ij}<»s, 

iiejaor«, iNier, wMsJaigr «i?it^ !»y®ift«|^ • i#t«Ks.i®&ting ii^t^ers • 
^•f^ry ««i^ ©f tto« i8f*#1t 4s«liit3.«njg 3waft!l^^«» %Mmt it' frc^ ^'tm« 
8, 1SI5, up %,© th» tiae im ^?«it #«lag lm©Ui«ssi? ti-*sr« •- 

l>«f <?»4ast also i3all«4 «.{i & «itn«s@ $«»« IhkXl^ wM 

3uisuLii«»t«tl in t&* ©3c««ut4es «f tlte %«kui9 ia ^westlea. H« 
te#tAfi«a tHst ta« l«^ae wt^ 4Ur«iia st i*ig ©ffiee; ihtit it 
wi$ euksiitt@4 t& t^ ^Aliitiffe, &e prl»@l|?e.Xs, in th« 
oemre« 6f t3%e trittX tli« sl.«f«»4ftsi ©f .-'erwc. to si:*» tiK^t, nt 
th^ Usa«t t)^ Xfm*9 «ais flia4«a *h« )amA «t <-26ST«r«sti&n with 
^r, Sbll« frtm ^i^HSa la« r<»at«<i %m py»5sie«»e# ia ^^ritah six, 
Ball 0i{it€«i t0 ki« th&t m i;«&aia ke«9 Mi» pX«,«:« ep«n$ eai 
3uii4^ &Ra »*11 isitcxiessiijag liquQ}e& tJSesr^; tl^t ?-a^. IfeiX 
«»*«<• r»t-s?©4 that iat«jxi ©feting iiquf^re s^re te b« s©14 ojs tUa* 

pr»«si»«B aontAon««i in tim l«a»© ».•» Jltiadaj- » * * smd it wo* 
vlth tU« «xpr«s« unU«rfitAmllng Wtw««n ih# parting* Vtn^t 
IMttor WAS t0 bft siol4 on ^uTMiUgr* iH<>>t thit Xo<:^»«» «ei» »adi««* 

th« «<» {7t rul«4 thfat it 'WR« lnftdMl«si1»l«» 

Closiofi Ww (drininul 3fitt« aiMp* 99« J^tct. 259) whether 

Tht» y»3«^6t; 4<iQi»ioa of ilbte Supreasitt OOartt AlV«rt 
8<»«f«l<i, «i »X Y, jAAt«» Ca«IXtt (lo. lsr7C%) I |»*»8i»i; upon 
i:iii« ntm*t loiMiv, iioldo tliat it »<%» »et aiid is, ihoj'i»fto.r<i»» 
de«ii«iir«» of usiiu »£tp(»ftl.» X» %im% muf, «^, JuntiM (Jarinr 
•Ai<i: ^^Th« f«oXa ttu<»Rtii»a 1iito1.t«4 in t^iiis |»)roo««»fiiii9g i« 
v)»iher %hts provision or elsM»0 with r*f«r9na<» t« i»swinai«» 
tins ^^'1^ X»^a»«« if th« Ktat« BunOift/ eloning iii« is eaforovid 
in Chio^iiisP* r«i34«i)r« tii^ wiiolfl !•«&« void* It is Tigor«Miljf 
iurgu«u )^ oounfttfi for ^iaintiff in «rror i)mt ihi» <sX«ua« 
if n«t <iiirit9%Xy nt i««ui% inf<»rAntiiai/ «mat«»i(9lM«» 
▼lolAtlftn of thtt state law agAinst ostitning saloeao on 
Bufioajr; thiit tHi» optioaAl provioion intisiMtotf »n lnt«»]i* 
tioa to oon^uot tfc MUeoii io vi«i«tion of tne lav, * i« » 
Thii» iAMKo its oar ^uiSe»eat was not s]l:it0vn to tetYO h^mn «n* 
toroa into wiitli th^ inteatio?! of using th^ iiromisos for so 
uiaawfui purpi&stt. » ^^^ hvim th» ruli«« of tho Suprsas 
Ooujrt* t)%» Ju4gnsiit is mItle»ttAm 


258 - 24133 






E16I.A. 632 




MH, JUSTICE TAYLOR delivered the opinion of the 


This cause, having been consolidated with general 
number 24182, is governed by our decision in the latter 
case. ' 

The judgment is affirmed. 



^J -:-"> 

f* 'X.y kj 9 -al 3 X V' X %•> 





3xn*im n, im 


m» JUfciTSC* TATLCB d«liv*re<l th« Oi?l«il«n ef 

tiitt cceuri. 

Siftittinc tl}»t a written ooxitr»«it» f«r ilMi 
aiutu'^l r>xQ]!tartg« ef «<!<rt»la jr«iii <»«$iuitii smtl upon which 
tiM» pl«intiff h»4 £>«iid ^l«ooo,60 «« iHuni*«t «on«y« luut 
fAll«n tiurouj{li« owin^ Ut the <i«faalt of tiMr 4«f«n(ian%« 
th« |)l&Jlni4ff Wo^'i^hl »ul% and r«>o«ve/^«<ii « Tor^iat smd 

Jildg»«nt this app«i4l ie tak«a. 

On K«viam'o«r ^^S* idX&, th«> plaintiff »«nt %« 
tiM? imf^md'tnt a vyittwn ooiitra<i»i for th« mxehtmgm of 
e«'rt«lii 9ro]^«rii«»(», Aooont^anyiqg th« wrltt«ii ooatraot 
«aa a lotttey« ia whi^ 3i« ^laimUff i»t»t<?4 in^t a olMok 
fojr ll.r^oo.oO tmoloaotl aod «a» ownt aa aajrawei aoaay 
to 1»« ai^^XiaU on t)i'? pur^kmnia prlaa of tjb9 pronioao vltan 
ih« «l«al was eonetstsuaatadi, tj)« ooniraot of nxoiisns* wao« 
ao«ar4inftl/, duXjr aiffntvci ¥y lioth ^Xaln^if ^ad tiff lan-iant 
and ih(»ri on }i09mA»9it 3, I9il0« dapoaitaa in aaaraar with 
th« <Jhii3»4£0 TitiA ttml 'lif %i»t Cowpoay, Tha ooatxaot v>r9^ 
vidliNl, anon^ ai>Mir thin4sa« tIaU t^ <Jiaf«ndM«t wi>-4,d oan* 
Yay to tfcw jlaiatiff taa Rp%rt4t(»nt buli4inga eu\>J<!^ot U> 

A. 1 r ^ 

to th« <A»i«na»,nX a at^riaixi laiuildij^m c«i1bje«it ^o o^rtnlii i»«* 
<nBftbr(!ino««i , «tn4 in Actdltioii ptty XJk» A«tea.^»n% lll»SC^6««;)0 
in oasJft ana a jud^-'tnt ROi« for t&O0*C^€« Th« isontr«9t 
ftlffo provided t>i){it th'^ 4<!tf#n4«uiit slt^ulA furniish a i^vunc&nty 
polioy, coTArintf ih«* two ap^rtiMu^at l»yll«tlnga« nnc; « also, tlwt 
••«fc l><urty clkeulA rurniiih th«^ otl»«jr« wltnlti * r«^»«0nA>»l« tiM«, 
•ithisr a a<wnifi«At9 of tttl« or « <sti«ipl«ttt a«rchantAbl« 
AbntrAOt of titio or merchant* bl« titl« or guiUTMitjr poli«|jr 
•how In*? tltlo «t th« ti«o of thw* eentrwot iii tfef property -con- 
v«/»4; thttt in <M9« on «ii»«tr««t or eep^ \»« furnl»lM»<t, ob- 
j«otlenft th«r*to, la writing, ohoaiu b« metdf witiilii ion 
aagro %ml, if nuit'^rittl, ami net mtrsa i»ithin 6C do/it. aft«r 
ROtio«<, th« '3oatra9t utiouldi, mt th«- option of th« xmrtjr 
filing notio''-), \t9mm9 voiti. Further, sithsrr pdrtjr dctlivor* 
Ing o\>J$«Jtion« Kil^ht oifDot to tAlE» o«t«d) titl<» its it thon 
WAO, ^mi in t«tf«li Ofteo, tl&« •th«)x' ^art/ fthftttlcl «M»nv«;}^ mo 
«ffjr««4, but., p«^vl«i*d, tMat tlw imrtjr «6<»liT«T'ing «u«Jh oW 
jootionn orsQulA !!«▼« f irot «iT«m notlo« of Ru*h »l<««ticn, 
wituin t«tii dtijro «ft«r tii^ exyispiRtion of tbe ottid oixt/ dnyo 
Adit t«n(l«r«4 porforNwnoe; t'mti in 4(ff&nlt of mt«h notioo 
Of •X<»(jtiott ttnu t»»nd«*r of p^rforaAiioe ^vitiiin tJM» tla»« 
linitoc;, Xh« ;jftrty deliv^riiig »u«h ©bj*^otiott« oh&U , wltH* 
Ottt furtii'^r adtlon by oither |»«rtjf« be <i««»o4 to Jmvo «!»«»• 
doaod hin cilfiia. and th« ee^ntrttet ohoaid th«n o«tt«o to hnvo 
*iV of foot. Tiiiio irne it«aIiu*od y& be t^o «Bo«noo of tlk« ooii« 

tiM 4(»«L«T!itlQn rooitod thiit the pl«lntiff oa 
]IOTtt«b«)r 2d« Xf)ld, i»4a4 $1,CCC«00 ftR «{9.m(s»t saonoy to tiMi 



4«f"n<lnvit{ that i% tli«tl b«OHSM th«i duty tif tH« dmfimfyakt 
te funUali gUAranty |K»ilai«ft» that tliM d^ftmiant did »ot 
Si«rform hie o1»li^ation but a«^|3.«et«4 »n«i r«fuft»d to fur* 
nlab th«»3 vsr an^ etiirr <rri4«^aa« of title within « r^t-ason* 
«'bl<» tisMc akna af»>3l»roii tliAt h« ^woilti not imrfezm; th«it 
tlM platintif^ «M« lit «OLl %Xn*!>» r*t%i^ and wil ing t(? p«ir* 
f«n> sniti «ontf^9t} tiMt Ikgr ar«(u«oa of th» fAlluxe an4 ro* 
fueAl of tho di<*f(»ft/i&nt to p«r''oi«» the plaintiff «le0t«4 
to 4<!toltir« th^r cMsntrMOt null and t< id oii4 dowandoo a r«N> 
tuvtt of ti»e |l,0O&,00, WM0I1 4«f«i!i<Uint Imo f»il«d to pt^, 

iTm ^nO'tmdimt, in hin i»lo»dixis« d^niod that ho 
ao^loatod or r«»f\i»«a to furnloh iptarftnt^ poliol«e{ Alleged 
tiiat h« dili{;«ntiy t^iod to onrry out th« o(>ntraot} that 
ho wao i)r«nront«il by tho plftintif f vho notlfitt<i him tJUat 
)Mi oon«idor«4 %h^ Oi^ntraot t«r^i»at«d| \.hf^% tXw ;<laintiff 
failed vit>ila a r 'aooaabl« ti^s^ to furnieh a oertifioato 
of titXff iRBu«d Igr tym Hi^loinur or a oota^loto aore^jant* 
ablo a1»Ktradt of title » or a »«r^u%nt«iibl«t tttlo guarant/ 
yolioy; tiwt tiio j,>laiotiff n^«T porfejrsaad or offfrod to 
porfona laio ytgroomcnt, 

IfiYO wltneosefl t««tifi«ia for tho plaintiff and 
tvo for Uio t|9fO£i4ant* i^eiio Mm* prior to tho tlMt of 
tho ooatraott tho i^reportioo tho d«f«iaaant agrooa to eon* 
voy (h«r«;iisaftor oall«d th« j^li^ol aad ^onoit lMiil(iiag;a) 
«or« in th« u«uAtf of !U«g<»X and Ztimtn* th«r« wor^ eutotand* 
Ittg a«rtain lloua on th<»&i ia favor of a atiRit»«r of oroditor«« 
yinall)r« tho Siiisol aad 2oH»a propvrtloo «oro ooavoyo^d to 
Judgo jTAshor in trust for th« oreditoro, 0uhooauoat3L/ un 
option i>a thoso pirop«rtl«'fl« for a lialtod tiiao, awo givon 
hy Jttdgo J^iohor t« \ht» d«f«ndaat, aad, ots ijovfmbor SiZ, 


X9I9* th«t d^feKUaal «ro&« %» Ju<Si|rt Fi»>ker aoiif^ijitf; Mat 
•f hi» iniralm** of tJtt«» $t]roi;i(!Frtl«e, f{»ur«itt»tt to ihA ey* 
tion) «ut»J««t to Xi«n8, 7R«p«etiT»ljr . of |li2,60G«G0 mi& 

ih« 4«tf» of daeoinff** the mm of t9,8C<^«00 ftnd iiit«r«i»i 

of $8,903»C0« 

tho pAAAetiff t<»Rtifi#d thnt h« hud ^ muR)i«ir 
of <}onv«reftti<mn miVi %h» d«» f enfiliftBt » oft«r iite* oontnMil 
of oxotMirt^ mkB «x««at<i4, «yn4 icKctt ih« lotter sA^ld li« 
v«o jt^otiixME thing! arrftn^^ii; tliat alioui t«hTumry 8« 

«r« «ta; ^oli^inttf oo 1>««t we «in.^ 

7H« vlVn#»Ot 7rfu9ie« iefitifl<s4 tlunt aft<»r th« 
dof«nii««At hftd •sor^i««4 i^i» option he h&A oovwrsUl <x»nVttro*« 
tioa* with %h« <l«f«sitl«uat{ thKit i^^ «ttk«<l hln why ho 4icl not 
SO Ah«»d «tn<^ olofto t>t<B 4ttJiI oad mokit A^livmrj of tltlo to 
ti>« plaintiff; %h»% ho ftokod hlai vhother b* xnimtod to uoo 
thm tsoaoy Im» wao c«-tting froTk xlarn pXaiatiff to oXo«r ikiu 
tltlo u}»; Ihfikt th« 4efon£Saiit o«i4 *I don*t iratit to |Migf 
out tto waoli u0AO9r*« It i« tDM oviaonioo of tho ;»l«l»» 
tiff tliat ot tfeo U»o 1b quootioiai ho iia4 undor lile ooi»» 
trol an4 ouXloot to iUe Aie^oltiotl #lX,0C€*a}« jhin 
OTidenoo of «h«» dof ontiont ic th«^t ho woo ^eol^^ent of 
tlM Worth 6jLdo s««h ftfid iwor Coinpiftngrs thot alMut toa 
tf«aro yrier iu JfOTOo^r 69 • 19I&« h« htk4 o oonvorocitiou 
with tho £iio;i8tiff ooiio«mlng th« oxohRng^o of th*^ l»ro* 
portittoj thM'i %n« ^Xointlff ool<i ho 4«»lrod to got hoX4 
of th« Vuildingo ami «h«t in vioo of the foot th«t thus 
Worth i&ia« £i*A0h on4 Door aeo^Mkilsr hoct o Xioa «>fi tho hnild* 

ing0 h« ftek4Nl him to uen hii» infla«it€m »o thait Im ni^ht 
obtain xht» W1141iic«s thftt Ik* had m num^cii' of t»enYi^ri»««» 
tione with th» iilftintiff prior te llov«M^«r S3, X0X6, wh»a 
lh» isentr««t &f n€kr<im'bmT S3, 1019, «ind %h«» letter witr* 
d«llv«r«id to hiM{ that te« N«t»» glY«n i«a dayv tixav t« saftk* 
Vkp hi» aind «heth<«r or n«l he oeuld iiAcmr th« objiit^iiionfl 
to th» tltl«2 tint darilfi^ thu ton cl«^o ho inv(^Bti$«t«<a tlio 
Mat tor tmA an J^oeonbor 8, 1916, oitfxiod * <»ntr«»ot «ind 
dopooititd It «&ti» lh» flhioii|;o fltlo and truot aoM^nay; ilmt 
«1»out tt woftK l«t«ir hm lUmA m ocnv^roatloii vith the pluin* 
tiff who tola him ho i»Mi tr^ln^ to plttoo a aorte«K» on 
tteo property he wro r»o«>tTins \m<itr the oo»trtt«t Wt 
that he ««« ^MTinK difflouit/ In ttoistc s^o; thai ho told 
tho plaintiff h^ oouid olotur hits pFopttrijTt tH«it of tho 
^ofen~i(tnt, «%t <iny ti^ao* Tho dt^<m4»iit d(ml«d th»t h« 
hftd ottttod th»t h# «ro Id r<i<|ulre th« plaintiff to put 
119 hi a tjon«jr hofox-o ho wool d otttoetyt to Ammr tho tltlo* 
Bo further tootifi«d Vnn.% tho plointiff novor teadorod 
ft •forraatjr dood or « jud«»o»t aoto, nor tho ;^l]k,SO<;>,C!C*, 
provld««i for la th« oontri^ot or teadorod hi» ohotroot 
of title or n gufu'aiitjr pulley, fior i«iidor4»d * o«rtlfioot(« 
•f title hy tho iio«:l9trikr. 

Thu ««itttOo«« XowacKt, uttornc^y for tho dofenuont, 
t^otifiod thtit iw 'a«r«o proooni at » me€tin4 pa SOTonther £3, 
1913, ttt ohidh ho told eoo ^lityor, who rnproeontod tho plain* 
tiff, that ^ioffol <Htd tmmn had originally attoiaptod to 
oonatruot tho hulldiiiffO} that, f iodines thwskoolveo in 
flaanoiAl diffiaulti«o* th<^y hod boon pnid a eum of flM»a<?y 
hy tho oroditoro and tho oonvoyod th<» proi>e<rty to Judgo 
l^lohor; that ni«ft^l Ana Zotaoa had plondod th<^ tiilo to 

ti»t0 mttldtaritn it th«y w«re pAl4 aWut ^SCt^.CCs thdit all 
th« orodltar* had fl«r#«d %o i^vll «t a ««rtaii> pri<3>«; that 
be t«ld hits t^Jsnt If it^hn plAinilff «>oal4 aigii th« ocutrttot 
an4 t«n<i«r it in th<? form of «t px«i^»JLti&n» toettitier with 
hit ehftdk tf #X«0€<3*00» tJa«tjr would iftlc« th« Mutt^r iip urith 
Ju4c;e fish«r ann thfl'n if Ui«jk 4«?oidft<t to <(o into it Ui«gr 
voul<t <iso«9t ft proposition fron th» ar«4itor« tuad than, 
within t«n 4«i/i»« ao<s«9t thtt prepniiition of th« plaintiff* 
H« further to»tifi«d thRt he t(:^i4 U»y*r %im.X th«tr<^ w«mi 
nethinc In thp wmy of €lelivnTioc Mw titlo; to tho $>l«ia» 
tiff if iho etef^ntiAiti oould got it fron th« oroditors 
at the pri<af! ho hod bo^n giTon on option «»• He furth/sr 
t«i»tifi«<d thot rm Hanmkxy 4« 1016, k« had o o&nv«r««tioa 
vfith Hothjo, atiomo.v for tho ^lointlff* in whi<3^ ha told 
hin thot tho dtfondimt had tumf»d tho nott^r ov«r to hisia 
tho witnooos that the l<!>tt«r of January 3» 191d, i>oe eia* 
biisttotto wad thnt ho dooirod te irnov doflaitoly whether ho 
ooneidorod tho «»ntrao% nt on oad or not oo that tho do* 
f«adAnt mulA ^-c^ttvn hJUioolf oooordlni^ljr; thst Hoth^* 
stotod thot "ho intendoi t& toll ue thnt hv^ oon«idorod 
tho i»»ntrii3t at tm «idt on«^ oontod hio Bone^ Iwtclc.* 

Tho inttor of Jmrntaty- i, i9ld« oi«n#d by tho 
ottornoy for tho plnintif f ie oo follo«oi 

*lhldor oontraot or «olo of prm&inmm to 6ol 

K.. 0r«ff, jfx? i ajr« roftu^red ^o 4«llvor to tho 
ooid draff within n roasonoblo tlm<^, « morolmni* 
Ohio ah»}trttOt of titl* or aerfShojatahlo oojgr there- 
of, brought down to dnto, or o »«>>rohMntoblo guar-^nioo 
volley ioeiK"!} hf tho ^hlen^iO Titlo At fruttt Oo»Ei»angr, 
or a H«giotrar*o <d«?rtifioat9 of titl«« issued h)r 
tho Kflteiotmtur of Do'^do of aook Count/, Xlllnoia. 
Tho pnrohaoor uaJ^r th« tosaao of aaid oon* 
traot dOMMT that tho tins otiieh hao expirod slnoo 

• 7- 

%hft AX««sutioii Of that «otttrad^, fortiw 4«» 
liv«r^ of «ai4 «vl<deHa« of title, 1» mat««t»»mf 
m.}»l»i thAt you Httvtf not compiled witi; tho iomo 
thereof, txmi hav© in ©Us«r thii^« fftilsn to i^or* 
fom mMl4 i«jm« la trl]i« ^aR.a«r Doia within tl»« tin* 
ia Mii4 oontraov «ot out* 

Ei>» Urtkft io rf>«d^ at «i^ tixoo, to oxoouto 
a ttWAOoJUftUieii <»f»»icl oontraot* «)^ in ojeiy oth«r 
wy roloaeo you from U«>>iiity unUor th« «xoou* 
tioa tJMrwjf , previa«d /om will within throo 0«y» 
frosa UUb d«.t«, f«r»Rrd to fcjr. ar»ff li iirttft for 
#1,C)0C>«00b r«^$)7-eB Anting tl:^? e^mft; t nono/ 4opo9l%- 
#4 uttdior %h« tejTflui of th« eontrdot in <|u«»tion« 

Tb« ir»oor4 ohoiNrB that ^:-n Samimry 26, X9X*« tl»o 
9i«iniiff 1»rou£Jbt oult in x^ Ooimty 'iourt for tlio mam 
«lftin tt£»on «}»i<rh tho prment •udt is imood, mid tin jAnutuqr 
Mt I9I5, e.l<vot>»d to tnko • aon vuit* Two piip<»r« woro 
t»ff«r«<i in «vii3<m<90, imm ilat«4 Jyno 29, X931S, |>urip»ortiRs 
to ^« an «;»ufti»ntien of Ihm title to lots IIT aaa IB )asf 
tb« Chi<9«i|i;e Ti4l« and Troot (^^GV^imsy »Mi oottlmc forth 
titio in Bttxv/ H. y%tth«r, oulijoat to Sd ob^ootiono, and 
iho othor, difitod X)«««Hiter £C', X»X&, ohnivinc titlo to loto 
A OJW& a ia lorirsr u. Fi8}i«r nubjoot to o ai«ail»«r of ol»Joot* 
iono* CertAin orldieaoo oonoornii^ « ^nrerftation ultioli 
took 9I1100 in Pobniaify or ^aroh, 19X6, ot wltioli wtro 
9roo«at, onong o thorn, Judffo ?i«h«ir« )Sat%i,)o« ot to m«gr 
for tJM puiaintiff, nnA Umwama, attomfl^ for tho ^'^fondiant* 
havlac t»o«n rvLl«4 hjr thm trim Jtt«t«;o *» iaooai^toat, on 
tho ground that it tocik plaoo oubooii^cnt to tho oomomioo* 
M^nt of th«^ firot «uit for tho rooeT^ry ef t)m tl,COO»00, 
th« pinintiff «tt4« thn foiloviatf i^fvffort 

tho plaintiff offered t« prov® by ?', 0* ?rmik 
anil fiv* oin-T witn^oseii tlast in Fohrunry or i^AJPOh, 
I91<9, at a e{?nv«roatirm h«i<;» in th^^^ <>«urt roaa 
of Ju&&9 SiiTV^ y., ?i»h«r, Frank C. liathja produoo^ 
oarbon 009I00 of opinions of title, %huum beinf tho 
4oett««ntn ftlr«a(ly eff»r«d in 9vi4«no« no i^laintif r«a 


fi«iy /ar JulittiB K, Levin* sm^ -,". /ufig* fi»h«»r and 
©tii«r« !»*'r<? jjrfiB«ni. thai .!•♦ l^tJ%}« a»k»4 = r, !-«▼• 
in irtwi mboat th« o^sjoatlwn* »«t out In th- »* 4i»Om» 
ia«nt»« tmii Vmii ttudn «?it-!'i^r LevlA or H«w»Rfi «|^e»k* 
ing for hlM, «8lt»4 tf OrAff w»» r««<lj^ with th« wacunt 

ht ■»»» no*. « ^itHTiMty a-^i'si^RKjr} th^it t««> i»<m<^' wa» 
r'm<i^ ntnd th«i iSmff »«» jr-sa^i^ t':i ^«yfer» ihe <»«• 
trttoi 054 bie j»ajrt; ximt thf'r«*uj«PO ^Itiftt^r l.«Yin or 
liftntttm i*«Jt»»4 if tn« ua<.'a««j- «euil4 ?^.fM 1ii« put in «f»«w»w 
with ih*-' ChifflsM?© Titl« i«i4 frurt "ojispr^rgr -mil ps^id oat 
in diftofeM^rgo of t,tm li«R« wn t'ne aiei^«il xmd J&««Mm 
prttp«r%i99 oiwa lUitiMo »Ft«ltiiifi for ^rt^tt, r*fwii«Ml to 
«le thli, 

thmt th^rwiion l«Tiii omid iiut>»t#iLOti4my, *m 
ytsu thljOc I «M SOiMis to pvit sgr aM»n«'jr In thXm l«nen** 
»n4i tiv r#«i*t«»r Kt. Nowmui «iUld It oninnot b« 4«»»o «ny 
oth«r w;«y, it lo nil off. -?« will now fAght tJho 
sAtter out In « lawouit. I offftx- to u«k« IImi mno 
•hoainff »b(»T*» ««»t ffirtli iByr tii» witii««o(»«, ?rimk 0. 
jRathJo, Jt^mtl 5« yii^«r and a1«k l^roU, 

Tho pvoff«>r€Na •^4«ae« wm, tlMn, rcjo^t^iti. 

At thf* eXo«« of »ll ti»e ^vlUanoff, o«frt«la la* 
utruotiono ««ro gftvon l^ thp oourt, aii4 tJw Jury lirou^sht in 
« Y4ir41ot for the ^lulntiff in th« turn of |1,CC(^«0C, and* 
ikpoil thnt* Ju4gr««Eit WA« «nii«»r«til, 

Tb(» v«rtU <3t of tho Jarjr iittot b« «on«ii«r«(l »• b«»«d 
•aijr ^n th« ovldonoo tJHMtt «A« ooiUAly «ui«ltt«^« An^« that. 
in @ttr opiaiea* ie too va«tt«> im4 uuiof^rtaln to jutitifjr o 
finding f©r %im pJUiitttff. [SowwY^r, in vl»w © ;' th?; «vt<l«n«* 
thKt ««o •ffffirott Mii4 Which wao rojodt«<l by tte«^ tri&l oour%» 
it lis OUT Jtt4«ia»nt that In th» i»t«r««t of ttxaot 4w»tiao 
In taa*^ Mifio th»ro OH^ltt to b« » a«v triia. Qf <H)Uf«o« th^^ro 
la ftoao «Titi«n«90, la tJA« pr^oont rffoord, tliAt ui> to foVriMxgf 
S, i9X«, ihut dtfoiMUuit voo not jrwMy tmA ttU« to furnioH o 
C»o4 title tr hlA propertjr* th» ;;laiAtiff t< «nifl«<i tlwt tm 
tf«fond«nt oald nt thnt Uim», ""Sfn mjt0 4oiatf tbff ^«t «• OMt; 

lattstliim; &• beat »• onta** tkHirtt i«, «lso, tltci t««tiM»)9r 
•f 3^r*nk %imK oit on« oeoaJiloa tlie a*f ^oaaLjat •Aid, «h«n 
«»k«4 wJjiar b« did not £0 *t*»a4 «tnd idOBC th«) d«al, "X <i&n*t 
«nat to |H(9r out •« Maali ooA^y*, On tii* 9th(»r ^tentf, the 
t«ctia*fli3r of the d^fwudMii is thftt* in a oonvrx'«i£&ilon 
with ih« plaintiff, Uu» lAti^^r t«ld hin h« ««« trying t« 
9lia<3« « ]Riort£(ai;e t»s th« {irot^^Tty h» wkb to r^seiv«« but h« 
irjut faMTiag 4iffi«ulty in ^&ing »«, ftnd ili»t, in thf»t oon* 
v«r«Ati(m* )»*• tH# dwftsnt^ant. told th« plaintiff, 1»<» oeuXa 
«l<Nur M» f»r» s>«)rtjr ( t^t in ib« prtt|p«rrty «Ui<ih th« defend* 
fkct xviks to glv« titl« X&, m% any Utt«« Adniltttd!./ therft 
ic ne vvidenM thntat d««4 or Jwog^Mnt iM»t« or «n aJ»«tr»ot 
of titl« or a (^ttttTi^tjr policy or a H<^ifii)r»r*B ««jrtirio»t» 
vao t«nd«rod by tho ^lAiniiff . th«» latter relying on ihe 
olain that th« d«>f«ndi«nt was in aofault and it ir«a net 
n«3«s8a:qr for M«i« th« pXaintiff^* to MiaJc« » t«nd«r« 7urtlaer» 
t)u)jr« in th« t^4tineitjr of nnwum, ih» atternoy for lh« d«* 
fondant, tHa^ ho hutd a <3cnv<9 root ion with JIathJo, the attor* 
no> for Vim lanintiff, in ^hish h« loin Vnn latter t^t 
thf l«tt«r of January 3, 1016, van <%abiguoua; t^t ho deoir«»d 
to iicM»w ju«t what it si3«!>«jnt, and that Rathja said that it 
«aa a«£ini to infoxw kin that th« octntra'^t «ae at an ond, and 
that tho 3^1aintiff d'^'sirod his monmy huok* It i» truo that 
vhoa tht) iQttar of Jamtar^ 3, 1916, inui vritton, aliout throo 
iNHrit* hnd tranopiired oin-ac the «x«<3utiun of th» oontmot of 
•x«hahgo. Still, baarine in mind all thc<» eirouowtanooo 
of th»? oaao, it doeo not follow that fros that Hingl« faot, 
and th« failtiro of tha dofendant within that tino to tender 
yarfonaanoo, - tho plaintiff would h* jtaetifiad is 43on* 

•idit^ring th« (scntraot at an and vtf^n without aakifig any 
tondar on hio own 9»rt« 

As to thff QsmrtfrnatXon ivhich took plntstt memt 
titt« in y«l»n4a2gr or liar oh, X9l(i* in im court room of 
Judge yi»h«r« thsre is no «U>uM ilmt It la the lav tiiat 
may ana all ata^«8ia«nit«, agalaftt iat«r«»t m»<t<i %isy thm 
Atfteniimtit and p'irtalning to th« iiMttors InTolvea la th« 
litig^ation a:f<» <3C>np«»t«nt no naittr vhou «a<ie . Voluntarjr 
aaitlisBioa* «if;«»lxi6t int«9r»et ar« alwftys atllnleQiVle. aa 
•»i<^ ia M>y»)mll 2*. Sh«r^<iU»a . 10 S A ft. setj -A* to 
th« <l«oXamtldn8 having l>«?«'n giT4»n after ili« <wJHa«ii<sa* 
mmnt of th« Buitt it 1» oertain th&t the «i«olarati«iio 
or tJ^« aoto of a j»art/ in the aauso are almgra orlclonoo 
without rvff'Tdtn^e to thf ti^o i^fln %h*>y w»r« laaiM or 
don«« An iai Morri»* tt ASS£3£ X* 2sM££!S!l* ^ jOall» 86; 
Stulfe>i T > ::;ha?;^»lin> 4 Jolaio, 461} ?mu 1 ^'hil, r?v. 79.'' 
Vigsero «»n Kvid(»ns«>, ooo. l€Si6. 

Uad«^r ti^^" oircBMUBtanoott wo do not fool Juotiflod 
111 roforoing the JuUc^imt without ro^uAndiOe; tho oattoo for 
a new trial. It ism^ 1»o that whrit tran«i»lrod at tho tiiao of 
tho allegod KinYtroation, when both p«grti«« or tht^ir ro« 
pr«^e»ntatlTOo vor^ present, wao a oomploto Juoti float ion 
for the pilaintiff 0'.)»cluding thAt th«» »ntraot wao iium 
at an otid owing to th« {i^fault or tho otatt^Mmto of tiio 
defondnnt or iiio attorni;^* and that h« woo th^rofer^ OH* 
titled to a roturn of his oaraont iaon«y. If thci* a^to of 
tho d^foationt iuatifiod %h« plaintiff in oonaidftrin^ tho 
oontraet at fm and it would follow that ho would bo entitlod 
to a r<f«tura of th^f oamoot sjoaojr, th« $1,</C0,(€. Aftor tho 
dofowj^ant aigaod the oontract, tho earaoet aono/ booaao, 
purouant to th« ooatraot, a plodgo «fer tho faitlriful par* 
forwianot th«r*»of* on tho plaintlff*o part, aatJ, of eouroo, 
if tho oontraot failod owin-;, to tho dofault not of tho 

plaiatiff "but •? th« 4i«f«a4ant« ih« Iatt«r would not t>« 
•ntitleU to (»ppx'oprlAt# th(^ e«Lr»«!«% Bi»ni^ or pXvdlg* «f 
$l»0€6«@0. All «onnici«ratl«rQ had tli<»n tmiXm^ »lUM»at 
an^ default on tim plaiisiiilff*^ part* 'ih«n th« 4«f<ia<Ja}it 
lM(MUt« in 4«fault, if im 414, ilte (sentraot ef wxaimngfi, 
a mutually ffsiAQiuitory 1»ilat«jral ^ontracrt. e«»fl*4 to «xi»t» 
anti l«ft an Jlt« tto<}u«l» an obIig»tle>n on ilio defendant 
to reitum th« aam^at BM>n(»y to v#ti<sfo h« was th«n not on* 
titlod a« th« oonM4<l(?ratiftR tli«?rftfoi' had fall«cl* 

A« to th^ crontiintioa on thn j^art «f tJbw dofcsu&aat 
that tho (^plaintiff noT»r t«md«ir«a 9«rf o^maneoi It to 
thu lav thnt ^hor* a t«iiaer would ^ ummXtfrnt^ it i» u»» 
no8«»»»ary, Xn i| «^ ;^t^ y^^ ^S^S^t 178 HI* 275* the oourt 
•ai4{ "An to eoi«pIainajat*o fallvuro to t«n4«r tim aaount 
4uo, tlofi lav io woll ««ttlo<t to the ftffoot that it was 
aot noottOBar/** Aa actual t«(t4«X' 1^ the jilaintlff boforo 
•uit lirought ia uita«o«ooarjr, wh«a„ froai th«» amto of the 
dafeadaat or from thff^ situation of the propdtrty, it would 
b« wholly nugatory • m mure uaoloos form« If, hvttotn or 
at th« ti^o of oonplotifm, tho (l<»f«»dftnt )»s ojtonly and 
oTOvodly r«^fue«d to porfom hio j^rt, or deoiiarod his in* 
t«mtlon not to porfom at ail <»T«iii«, thon the plaintiff 
aood not nuUco a tondnr or d»iaaad I to porformaao*' b«for« 
^rinsing ouit. Xt Ik onoufth that h« io r«a4y and willing 
and ofr«^ro to perform in his ploadiag* *?*aM»i*oy on (3oatract«, 
•«o«, 360-365, Bee l^rmn T» Qedniaf, , 114 III, 388; P«'tfolf t. 
gra^^ . 48 id. lOSj Clartc j^l ESiS*®' *<*• ^^^i ?hayer Xa. star 
Minimi; Jojj,. l<55 id. 540, • 

Thii JudgAont i> roTRrottd and th« oauoo rwnanUod 
for a now trial. 

25832 \ 








On August 19. 1919. the City obtained a Judgment 
against the defendant in an action to recover a penalty for 
the violation of a city ordinance. "Oefendant prayed an ap- 
peal and filed Vda bond, but failed to file in this court 
his record on or before the second day of the terai. as re- 
quired by the statute. Sec. 100. chap. 110. 

The appellee has filed a short record in this 
court, and moves for the affinoance of the Judj^aent. Fol- 
lowing the reasoning in the opinion of this court in City 
''* ^latitsky , 210 111. App, 159. this motion will be allowed, 
and the Judgment is hersby affirmed. 



^^9 'AJ.^ r 

h' / f»">^^ 

131 • ^3471 
a^ C. FOItflR, 




i\J^0^^9 \J <^ ^. 
App9(il ri!*9IB 

IcualeipAl Court 
of (%i««^»* 

rei.A. 6 32 

Thl« i» an «p?«i^ frail s ju%m«nt •nUrrtd upftn tlM 
verdict #|4r July which f<3tma th« l0«iM» t9r tHe defa^ndtoit. 
7h« e»f^ hfim beta 8u)>«sitt^d t« tww jurl«s. Tb« flr»t iury 

aire m T«r<ll«t for t)Mi plaintiff, sjidl tl*» cmrt granted a 
tuiv trlf 1* Thc» e^i^e h«« alKO \»««n oonotdMirttdi l^y ti»9 «ipi'<»lX«t« 

.ribimul»« TMii e^xirt affirmed %hio ixui^mni. of ttat 'Unl«ip»l 
Court in y»»t<r YT ^ruj^, 3U 111. App. 8?8, but grwittttfl » 
o«rtlfieat« or i»portnae« to the s^upmim CttviTt, «h«r« tiM 
Jtt^amnt of tM« eottrt wan r«vtrB«dl. ye»t«r ir. Or&f. 367 111, 

flM» Gi^.iMi »^«« wiMKidbed to thii c^arX witb <1ir4?etiemt 
to e''ni»i«l«4 tTcm «rrftra &«sign«ii upen the asrlis. In iie«flr4«n<w 
with the vlew» CAjirtawiA ia tlMi •pinion of tbo uytpsFmrnt C Hirt« 
Iho opinion of thMV court »hnw» th»t tho JudcKcnt of this e»i^t 
«eo r«?Teri»od Wcaukm it hfi.d *pr«!(Ucated its judgaont oololy upon 
«B •rr««towi» oonooptioa of th« I**.* 

ApplylniC tha 1j.«« Of tho cnoo no otatod "bj the '^iiproat 
Court, It now Iwoooou our duty to oonoid^^r tho prinoipnl 
oooignMint of «rroz' mpeuod by nppoll«nt, vhlcAi ia, thftt tbo 
vordiot i» oontrftry to tho (onnifoot weight of tb« ovidonoo. 

It will not iMk ttoeoooftry to ropont foots oti^tod in 
the opinion oltod. tho ioauo of fact wa» And io whether the 



naae of plaintiff «&o fore«d te ««rtain ohecica, th» umntmt of 

nhicih plaitstiff tt««ks to r«ooTer fr€« a^fendi^nt. 

^ priaa facie ca»e wtis OAdo for pl»inti ff %y tlui 

undisputed ttTiilenoe th.j.i th« cin<lor»«>affinte ap Si^rin^' uptm 

theaf! checiiB -jwrt not Ib plaintiff •» h«fid«pltinj^. It wt«i» 

adadttcd tlitit f^an h«td uuthorlty to »ffix th« rabbor attuqp 

vodon»e»ent whioh whn uv^A in depositing oh«ok« in tho 

plaintiff's bonk ftccmmt. The d©fRrjd*int, in rebuttal, did 

not attempt tn &h.oyt that (yejn, in fact, h«(d uuthority ta 

write plaintiff's nmim on the eh«ok. ;;he rnlied opon 

evidence tending to ohow t>iat the plaintiff had pade certain 

oral acaBi$!ii«ae to th^^t effect* Jt» testified that cnt the 

deijr th<? warrant iW Ryim v:.& taJoin oat, plf^iatiff aaid to 


*tfhy, ar, ?oater aaid to me thut hf felt 
sorry th<^t I £(et mixed up in thie trouble. Ho 
{%l30 »fiid th-at Hyk\n w'lC p«frttitttf i to endorao 
iho^^e checks. Ajod he wa«« &l8 penclttod to ••• 
well, now -»- th&t if he needed noney for the 
bueinoBiit he eould go m\ii get then caehed whererer 
he could, .^nd he alee aaid that the naa could 
drink like a f ioh and nobody could tell the 
difference in the mnrninj?. thmi »? s pr»»Gtieally 
all Xhfi oen'v?re; rion th{.t took place on the 
Dlreet c>yr th.^.t dny ..t thnt tire .* 

^le alao tei-tifled to a aimilar adnieition »ade by plaintiff 

irtien Ryan'« c »e oam up in the Crinlnal Court before Judge 

iretit. <\delor J. Petit testified that in 1914 he wkb a 

Jttd^e of the Cireuit Ceurt of Cook County, sitting in the 

Criminsl Court, thnt he remembered fiyan^i c^^tub whioh caste up 

th(>t year in his Of^urt* He eaye; 

•l*iXl, in ;*n©T<«Br to t^ queetien by myself, 
or by the state *a attorney, ♦ « « Mr. Ifooter 
said thhi Ihr. Hyan, the defendant wr^B his 
collector end h»d «% right or was autherixed to 
sij^n the naiBB — > hi < naao — foster* s n«M, 
to those i^ieoks** 




On er«es «xiiMC>iaation h« e«id h« <ild not nimutmr wlwther a jury 
Wi^e vrttivcd. Xha nmne of tiMi atlAmej rwpreuvntlng Hyan, th» n«M 
of t]M oi«rk of hie e^urt or th^^t of tlM »iiite*n atiornc/ r«pre«#at« 
lug th« J^«>pl«, nor did ho rvmenflaer anything «1»« foster sftiA 
ihero, nor whether Wou^t «t^i<) «mything about rul>b«r siaapn a.t thtit 
tin0 nor wVmther tho trial wao hmlA In «iaRiB«i>, viator or fall. 

Ho di«|^os«<t of (hbdut t«« thnuoonci oasoo la tho tvo yoare 
he 8&t in tho Crininal C^rt Mid prohcthly fir* or six thtmsaiul 
vitnoosto tovtified hofore him during th&t tiaw* H« could not 
renwBiber who waa fmooat* 

On or«aa oxftminatioa h« vfto «.olE«td this (|ttO»tion, 

•q. l»n»t it a fact, Jud«» i*«tit, th«t Kr. Feotor 

e.t th^t tino ipinA plfAC«> told you thi&t Ryan h^ Authority 

to U8« only rubber st«uRpe to prepare theao eheeko for 

dopooit in Hank to his credit? 

A* iell, aov, he nay hmrtt s&id th»t, 1 cwnH ronoaibor,* 

Hobort ^'..Yuraoy to&tifiod that ho was a judgo of tho 
Sttporior C^urt of Cook C'^unty, and from hugant, X'iXh, to July, 
1916, presided OTer a branch of tho Crinlnal Crurt* That Hyan 
«a« finally triad bofor« hinr on a ehargo of grand laroony gro«» 
ing out of the tranofootlon; th»t plaiatlff was tho prooocutinf 
vitneao and thi^t, vrith plaintiff* e omioont, the charge wae 
eh«ing«d to petit iMToeay. 

lim oityo tJ-ife tostlsftony -f Fc^otor w»ti to the effeot that 
Ryan mta an all ar^imd man in the offioe, booKkoopor, ciiahier, 
aado tiepoeita at tho bank, *endorood d^ocks if I rocolloet, 
oeoaaion*3lly vent out cuad aado saloo in tho yaurd.* On erosa 
• xaminaiion ho oiiid ho did not aoan to tootify in Footer *o 
vordo. ''I ««o giving tha oubotanoo of it.* So farther eaid ha 
di4ni*t reaoaber V<H»t«r oaid th^^t tho authority was to endoroo 
with a rubber otA^p. Theeo oonTc^ro-^tiono e> testified toi by 
tho defendant tmA Jtidg<}8JP<>tit and Turaoy wor« opecifically 
ioaied by plaintiff, who, however, adaitted o.^ying that Ryaa 


had AUthorit/ !• endors* vlth a. ru1»ber «tfiUB9. 

Yh« ec.urt reporter of Um stat«*» ^ttom«/*« offl«i 
testified, produclag hi* nets book, thi»t ho w«-s Im *ttond«fie« 
«^ii <^y«aii*8 onae owob up before the graii(\ jury, ih»t Krs. Qref 
vith other wltneeeee were then present »nd their eteteiaente were 
ell t&leen in the rortm und la the preeenee ef e»<^ ether, thnt 
not « werdi eppedura in the testimony &a to may etAtenent hj 
reeier ee defende^nt eli&ime, hut that, en the eontrery, tceeter 
eiated *The only uathority he hed ««i8 to taice cheelcs for deposit 
end take e rubber etai^ *Pajr to the ord«r of tht Srorere* 
Katloael Bnnk* and eta«p 'U % teeter* Ke hed. no authority to 
eiipi my BMBc to nnythini^*** 

Oeerg« r, ft[i«65nn(?t, »*ie waa one of tu« jurore daring 
Hyegei^a onee before Judge tumey aays, *X did not he ear Mr, foeter 
s«y At thKt trial tWt he had ^ly@B authority to ^^yan to »le» 
hie niaae on thoee cheekt* fm4 c&»h then. I do net ree&lX thKt 
X heard any euch tOMtiMony** 

i^enJamlB i^xYec, iriio wh^ minute clerk for J'udge i^<^tit 
(It the tlBMie nytm*» et»ee oane up, ti^Httfl'sd th^tit he heard the 
oonTersr.tion with Judge Fetit, that he *hearrt Foster tt»y to 
J^4gn P«tit tht-.t he gawe thie ee^leyee of his, ^iyan, the 
authority of endorsing hie eheoks with a n^bber etaBq» in aaking 
depoeite in the Bank, but he di^ not glTO hlB ths ri^t te go 
md sign the oheoke and oaeh theit.* 

Charlee C. williaaa, the attorney aho represented 
Byan bafere Judge fetit, testifies th»t he heard the crniversatlon 
beteeen plaintiff and the Judge at thnt tins . He says, *Ju4«^ 
Petit e«k«d Footer lAio Kade hie deposits. He said, *«Tehn ^yan* • 
He fiald, *«eU, how did he make hie depoeits if he did net have 
authority to sign y>ur cheeks*. He said, ♦He kad autherity te 

• 9* 

use a rubb<*r sta^s. * *. Judge fetit said, *I>o you awttB to say 
Iw a*ir«r had authority to writo, to •igM ymr bum «« •ndoralng 
cheoksT* HO oaid, *I do*, Ju<lge Pt^tit oayo, *I doa*t Iqnov 
whether usinic yrur ruliber otaap la forgo ry or not. « « " 

Tho »a«o vitaosft test£fi«» thot on ttao trial b«for« 
Jwdgo Tuntey, ho, th« witnooo, ^eetione i ?o«ter on thio point, 
and asked ?o&ter if it was net a faet thistt ho had author isod 
Kyon to nign ehooko for onaXl am >unt6, to »hl(^ Footer answerod, 
*!•*• no said, ho did not ikoTe authority to si^n, to do i^ny 
thing but oeo a ruhbor staap* 

Patriek H. Boan<%r, the police offioer iiroooat at tht 
trial, i^iTOu a ftiubotantiaUy oiamar account of «iitf>t eecurrod, 
as do«o John J* F«irr«ll, aaothor polico officer '•dbo wao proaont. 

Yho burden was on tho defondaat to eotahlish if sfao 

eouia, tho authority of Hycm to endorao thooo eheoks. Tho 

OTidsnoe offorod hy hor w«is in the SAturo of oral adsiissiono 

olaiaod to haflro boon nado hy tho plaintiff against his oon 

interest, '^hii* this oiaao of OTldonco Is undoubtedly udnissiblo, 

it is usu^aiy Boat unsatisfactory. In StJUaOXl ▼. ^estom a»goyy« 

jjyy^, '6 Cttiio atato 4ia, it was said the roof: 

"Ho olass of toatiiKony, perhai^o, io s»ro 
tmroliablo anci a flior<t froquont eaust of error 
in courts of Ju&tic; th^sn tho narr^^tion of 
oonYer»i>tions real or protondod," 

ftir John ioffiiXly in ( ^r«cnslatg _ ▼. Oare,, sr B«aT. ?.84, «&id: 

•i pay fipy littXo dttontion to th* f^fflderit 
of «fl»y party th«l the adYorso p«rty h s a^jmltted 
tho vhole quostiOB in tim oontror^rsy betooon th«a 
toibo against tiiaaolf *" 

Ve think « prspoa^«ranoo of tho ovidoneo indleatos that 

Ju«cos Potit and turnoy aero nie taken a» to tho stotoaant aado by 

pl&intiff, as indood, thoy adnitt«d upon eress~o»B«inetti<Hi, thio 

■A«ht bo 00. «o think tho jtt(!gaont io ole»rly ond manifcetly againat 

tho propondwranoo of tho OYldonoo, nad fter this roaoon it will bo 

rtvorsod end tiw owuao roaaaidod for anothor trial. 

aamraaa-n Am aamw— ■ 

« • 24017 

FlainUff 1» Srr«r, 

tf iStanislav Cihl^ji^r and 
fSCBPlX 07 THE 3TAff 07 

Ai fondants ik Mr^r 


/• / l/'l y ) 

216I.A. 633 

Xrror t« 

i»uptrlor Court, 
Cook Coimty* 


xx^uv.^^D vm c»iBio» OF THs cctmr. 

this %,% a «rlt of error to roTiow an order of tbo 
Sup«rier Coari of Cook County finding plaintiff in error 
guilty of oovaral contempts of e^^urt and panlisking him 

laintiff in error v-^a appointed recelTor of oertaln 
pTemiaos by the Superior Cmirt B0Yen1»^r Srd, 1910* Bo appoaro 
to have aone interoet in the pr«fttiaoa and the order appointing 
hia provided thiit iMi ahould aerTo vithflai eoqpe neat ion* Cn 
Attguat 17, 1917, ho vtiui directed by an order entered la the 
eaae to file hia final account cmd report within tltree days. 
On ' cto^er 4th therez^ter An order »aa entered, re sit tog that 
he had filled to file thie report and ordering him to ahow 
emee within flYO di%ya. a oertified eopy «>f thia order vaa 
duly aerred on hia Oatobor 8th, and on October a7th he haTing 
failed to ahow any eauao, an attachaent against hia tnia iaauod, 
(tai JE>ecemW.r 3rd he wiho relo»»«d on hia own recognixanoe to 
appear in eourt Seeeaher 5th, «t n^^xoh tisMi the matter whs 
oontlnued to December 7th, and or, that date hia reco^tnisanee 
waa forfeited for ft^ilure to appear # On Pftceaber 12th haTing 
"shown no onUBe* ho was found guilty of oont«apt and ooamitted 
•to the eoMHOn Jail of Cook County, XUinoia. for a period of 
W»irty day a, there to reaaln charged with aald emtea^t of 


thls court or until released by dtti pr«o««B of Xaw** On 

December 13, 1917, tlaJLt order «&• Tctonted la erd«r to onablo 

hia to preparo his report as reaelTor, ond the notion to punioh 

hia wail o<m tinned until &eo»Kber 17th, and ut th«tt time until 

Deoeaiber 19th thereafter. Ott DeoeiRber 17th plaintiff in error 

filed hio report ae jNeoeit«r, ohowine the eolleotion of tl,?-^(i*B9^ 

and the expenditure of $4^5 ,81, as shown by reeeipta produced. 

the report al»o e»et forth further expenditures of $dOC for whioh 

Touehero frere not produo«^d• In this report plaintiff in error 

also aeksd allowanoo for oonqHrnsation and roasscmable oounseX 

fees. On Deoesiber 20th an order was entered removing plaintiff 

in error au r<tcciv«r and naain^ «ne Hansen as his sueoossor, 

ttp«i said Himsea giving bond in the sua of ^Z^OCO, the order 

further directed plaintiff in error to turn over and deliver, 

instanter, to H^uti^^on all the property, both real and personal 

and '•all aanney collected by said John C«*rny as reeoiver, as eell 

as any and all chorns In action and property of every kind 

roooivod by hia as receiver.* 

The bond of the new receiver wr-s filed «id approved 

«ni Deeeaber aiat. On the e^ae d»y plaintiff in error aade a 

aotion in writing that he bo given three days tiae froa that 

date la vdiieh to file an aaonded report as receiver. 'Ihis 

aotlen doe a not n^pear to have boon passed upon, but on the 

saae degr an order was entered, reciting the proeeedinfts for 

oonteapt as above set forth, and further, 

• • « e the court further finds that said John Cemy 
wilfully and conteaptuouely failed to file his bond 
aa receiver, before ating r» receiver of this curt 
as by orier of this court directed to do. 

Aad it further appearing to the court that tha 
said John Cemy wil frilly failed and refused to ccnqply 
with said order to file his final, true and correct 
report and account, as aforesiiid, as ordered, ind 
failed and refused to show eeuse why ho should not 


»*■' » 


%• punished for contenpt 9f court. The court 
therefore finds th-st the euld John Cemy i» guilty 
of R contcatpt of thie cmirt ♦ e ♦ , 

It 1» therefore orUered, adjudged and decreed 
thut tliXt BAid John Corny be cold ie herehy fined 
therefor the sun of Cn« hundred ($1*^0,^0) and that 
he feleo he coiDnlttf'd to the eonoon Jail of Cook 
County, Illinois, for a period of fire days froai 
%iiB date hereof, there to reaaia charged vith the 
said oontenpt of this court for aald fife days or 
until releciued hy due process of lav, snd that he 
tdso rfriaain in said Jail until said fine is paid. 

And now the enurt h«Ting ordered the said 
John Cemy, he being present in open oourt, to turn 
over arid ieliyiRr to ^alt /. HHnaen, the present re- 
ceiver herein imd aucceeaor of et id John Cemy, all 
the money and property collected and held by him as 
receiver v/hich oaid John Cemy adrised this court 
would aggregate the sust of, te»wit, $1,36C«89, and 
the said John Crmy being well able to do so, wilfully 
and oonte^tueusly refuses to do so, and wilfully and 
contfjE$>tuously to divulge the present depository or 
whereabouts the re -f, and the Cfwrt therefore finds 
that the said John Cemy is guilty of oontenpt of 
this court • » • and it is therefore ordered, adjudged 
and decreed that the said John Cemy be and he is 
hereby fln»d therefor, the additional sujk of One Hundred 
Dollars (ilCO.CC), and that he be coBHsitted to the cesuimi 
Jail of Cook County, Illinois, for an ad Utional psriod 
of five days from this ^Jfste, there to remain charged with 
said contempt of this cnurt for said five days last naoed, 
pr until released by due process of lasr, and th^d he be 
held in said Jai^ until said fine is paid. 

i\nd it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed 
that the said John Cemy be confined in the connon Jail 
of Cook County, Illinois, for an uddit^onal period until 
his final, true imd correct report end account ss such 
racciver is filed and api^roved by this o'lurt, and all 
of the sumeys and other pror^rty coll* eted by him as 
such rec«?iv«r is turned over to his said successor, 
there to be chtirged with a&id ccnteaqpt of thie court 
for a total and aggregate period not to exceed six 
aionths or until released \ty due prooess of law, and to 
be released, upon CMi^llanee vrith said order last nafl»d, 
sad th-it W'.rrants for s»id cosasitsMtnt isisue forthwith, 
directed to the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, to 

JPlaintiff in error contends as to the first parai^raph 

•f the order that it is erroneous and void because the proeeed* 

lags were criodnal in their nature and shnuld httrs been entitled 

ia the najse of the People, the courts of this ^tate seem to 

nieogniai u "twilight some* between acts constituting erisiinal 

Md civil eontenpts. People v, £lbert, 287 111. 465. vhether 

• 4- 

ihti proceeding ie earried on la tbe name of tke l^eople or in 
that of scnno partir to the suit !& regnrded as a aatter of 
oeaiperetiTely littXo iaportanoo. JLoctgr ▼. The inopXe . ISO 
111. 426; HaJtc V. yh^ X-tiOple . 23r» 111, 193. 

?il2rther it i« urgod tb«i, oa plaintiff in error was 
•ontonced on Dcoeabor ISth to thirty days in tho County Jail 
and begem to serve the eentenoe, a new and different puniehiaent 
could not thereafter be inposed for the sasn of feaM * This 
might be tnw if the offense of which he had been fntmd guilty 
was a oriainal oontea^t* The order under which he was eonmitted, 
howeyer, was ooercive snd civil in ite nature. The penalty 
io^osod was therefore net exdusiire. The court etild iii^ose 
other penalties until there was foil coKplianoe with the order 
of the court. J u eg ler v. Jfhe ye ople . aup ra. . 

Plaintiff in error next contends that the order of 
ccsBBitoent ie in part punitire and in part roffiodial and haring 
been entered in a civil ease is errOBOous for thet reason under 
the authority of aotnpera v. jmeka ^itove ^ HaniS^e CoBpimy . 221 U.S. 
418. The ruling of that ease is not followed in Illinois in 
eases in which, &e here, federal questions are net involved. 
BOthschild V, .^teBjcr Fiene Co.. 2586 111. 196. 

It is next contended that the order is errdneous Iwoauso 
it fails to 8tat^'! to whom the fines of one hundred dnllars uaeh 
a«e to be paid. This was held to be neeessary in ^gith v. Terney . 
62 111. App. 671, and McDonald v. The People , 86 111. App. 558, 
but these ottees were OTers>uled in the later case of ^ater v. Tho 
People, 94 111. App* ZQB^ for the reneon as stated in tho last 
cited opinion that the statute supplesents the order and thus 
*»iBtB it elo&r to i^on the fine should be paid. These oen" 
tentions oiouiot be sustained. Nevertheless, use think the order 

vtt'AC aaj 

:•»(!* XT » 


Ml entered «&& in aaTerel renpectc ttrroneous. 

The record shows thrst th» report of plaintiff in error, 
ft« roceiver, was filed on Dwcerslaer 17th, und that no Objections 
wer« filed to it until ^^jc*:" '>>«r 21 at, and the ?»9e©rd Mieno to 
Indic&to after tho order of commitsiont wno entered. '^ think 
this report tihould havo boon dispOMd of in bohh v«y h«foi« this 
ordor w«b «?ntered. ?ho order dirento plaintiff in error to turn 
over th* nJttolc amount of money collected "by hi», vhilt hie report 
(imdiaposed of and nt the tlm of sumteneo not yet objected to) 
showed expenditures sod« by hin of vhioh only a pfurt vn^re objeeted 
to when elajeetions wore filed. It is difficult to see how plain* 
tiff in error oruli coaply "with an order of the eourt to turn oyer 
the property in his hands to his euccesKor hef«re the curt 
determined «diat profwrty wa& to be tumod over X)y rulinfr on tht 
objectiims* MoreoTer, the first part of this oi^der purports to 
punish plaintiff in err«r for an alleged oontenpt of c^iurt in 
failing to file his bond n,a reeeiver hefore aotlng as reoeiver of 
the court. Ho rule had theretofore Iwen ontered hy the court 
against plaintiff in error with respect to this charge, there 
vae no proae«din|^ before the e<^rt in vihieh this charge was «!b4e« 

The first paragraph of the order also purpoi-ts to 
punish for flailing to coRqp>ly with the foxner order to file a 
report. he record shows, we think, that plaintiff in ©r^for was 
guilty of 09nteiq»t in failing to file his final report as orderod, 
but he purged hiniself of thnt eontoB^t by Bubsequeatly filing 
it. A single puniBhaent seesis to hayc been laeted out by this 
paragraph for two conteiqpte, ono of «i^;ich the record fails to 
shew plaintiff in error T»..a guilty of, end the other of which 
the record 8hov« he h-jd pui^ed hiJBself of. 

By the second par-igraph of the order plaintiff in 


error in found guilty Of contenq*! for ha-vin*: refused to turn mnr 
"in op«n court* th« reoney and property coilect«d ©f the a«grc«at« 
Mirunt orf" CI, 260,89 to his eueceseor as receiver, and an additional 
fine and an additional coaBniitment ia ia^posed therefor, i-o rule 
hatf be«»n entewd to ahow ctm— in thia r«ft|»eot. The report was 
undlspoeed of. There w&e no proceeding giving juriediotion for 
thie alleged conteBtrot, Plaintiff «aa entitled to hie day in court. 
aalcaton t. HoXdoia . 72 111. .ipp. 346. 

¥o think, too, the thlrtJ. paragraph of the order la 
erroncoufl in th t it conmlts plaintiff in error to Jail for an 
additional period until his true and correet report and account 
ahottld \i9 filed and •approved toy thie court, ■ Xf the report filed 
is Ineuff icient, the court, undoubtedly, hy a proper ©rd«r entered 
could direct plaintiff In error to file m additionol report, and 
If he felled to do m, in & retaonable tlaw, punlah hla therefor, 
or by fine or iRpriBanment coerc« hl« Into obeying the order. In 
■Hch c»«e plaintiff in error would •carry the key to hla em prison." 
But plaintiff in eri^or cannot do anything w3iioh would cowpel the 
eourt to aiorove hla account. Th« court might fall to do that 
• Ither for laek of time to take the matter up mnA emalder It, or 
having conaldQred it, might err In Its judgsient as to whether w 
aot the account should be approved. In the seantlaus according to 
this order plaintiff In error wuld l^iave to reajain In jail, The 
liberty of eltlsers may not thus lightly be taten away in this 

IBs find It lapoesible to separate the vdieat from the 
%ftVt« or thi? good from the b«d in this order. It will therefore 
^ x^Tersed. 



8i • J^527 

buoi»«6« eoV^P'C'iim-afy it KATZ/ 5 Xrror to 

# ) lifaalelpal Court 

\ / i of Ghloago. 

SSMikias YimTtA»^ doing: |^Bin«eB } 

};$ef<'^ii<).«ijl' In '^rr tar, ) 

Yhio ie A writ of error te reTiow a judgaomt for 
dicfendaot «ntGre<t upon IJ» ▼erdiot of « Jury, 

¥h« nXal«ttlff iMlOV anod for direct a en an &Ilec«d 
l^{r««nent to d«tliir«frr J?«>5 ^»rjfolji of fiour »i ila*» prloo of 
$6.^0 pmr ^Krrei, wnich 4*?f*;nriBat did not «nd would not 
doHT«»r, «h«reby plaintiff b wore deprived of diwra groet 
gaino etc. 

I)ef*tnd»nt fll«d aa affidnirtt of aerltB d«*ny tng tbo 
f<M!;ta n» ft«t Out in the stRteaswnt of <?l!»iA, a»d later filed 
aa odditimaal affidavit, i^ettln^ 'xp mdim A of ths OHlfowi 
S^es r\ot, Hi«rd*a ^ewioed .>tatut<»«. Chap, l^la, cloiatiiig thet 
th« ;^XI«^«}ti coRtrfetJt c«ild not bo pftcoTor^d on by rft ^Bon of 
th^tt ftoetlon. 

The evidsnoo showed thut a oar of flour of 3C6 
barrola wa» sold to plaintiffs, ioa^at 11, 1916, 1»y ana uaith, 
a broker; thut ^lalth nade & m>movii,ru\im In srrltlng of tho 
aalo, containing the nanea of the vendor nnd Ttsndeeo, tusount 
of flour aold, and tho price and teriia* Ihei terma warti atated 
to IM! '*Caah, leaa 1:^*, the writin^E aleo atat^d "Aeoeptad, 
B* yiahainn, by phene*. 

A ctfffy of this nonorandUR w la given to plnlntiffs 
at the tlM, 

It waa adaitt'Jd ccfendftnt h«d the flour for aalo. 

r f i8 , 


•ad SKployvd ;>Blth to a«ll it on thd ioame Btaiitd in %h» 
tmmomndxm, 1»ut iha <t«>feadcunt testified that 1»ef«r« eeapXctlne 
th* mJL« £isith called him up, and tbat h« %QXd a»itb th«iA If 
b* sold to plalBtlffK, tM», defcndAatt ^nuld h«tve to h«ini a 
dtpoalt of 1200. 

Thie «vid«no«) irate lot ia evtr tha o^j«9ctlon of plain* 
tiffB, anfJ the o«»e v»»t to t)^*? jury under Instruotiono by i^leh 
it «»« told th«t if th« Jury bulisvo i saiih wy» not «A2thari»«A 
to askke and ^nior into ths contrafit as tf^«»tif iad to, it «fh<9»14 
find for tho dsfendnnt* 

Flaintifft ' olniM thnt since tha co»tr<%ct wfto muSo 
ivhilfi <^»Bitb W!»s i»«tinu within Xhm .-xdjcittftij awr'sront aoop? of 
hi« 'MJithorlty, nd tb« dirs>cti«!»n to rftT-^ire a -ifpeolt, if giren 
vaa a apcr-ct or private liniitntion on th» ucu'sral riUtJiority of 
Sitith, pl&intifff* would not ^ja to*i^jtnd tlwreby, oitin,?^ ^ Corpua 
Juria, p. S«6, seittien 20*. 

le *» not think it n«c«38E.xy to doeichi whothor the 
Inar tit(»d is applioat»l^ to tbs faeta of ti^ia sunn, lii«o».Uf.« ao 
t>iink « |>mpondertma« of Xha oTidonoo indiotiten lamX the direction 
to ror\uire :i d^poait WiS nevor, in faei, give»n» lln<lor th« 
pie tidings, ith« bur. Ion w*© otj d^fend-snt to proY'i ti^iia. Tlw» only 
proof off<jr<9d, is h.i« tmn tostiSKmy, «*«ich i» psr^kt^tioally an- 
oorrcb«!r«terj . it ia dsni«d by femitfe, vho ia, apparently, dia- 
intorostftd . it its rJlao ifl^robabls bec^^.tt^e th« »«1« «»» for cjah. 
It erntr&dict* tJio writlan taeaorsadutt aiade at tiw tinso. Tha now 
trial ahauld here Teaon granted, ror thia *»rror» tla« judgjsent 
frill ba r«?v,»p«ed and tha CKtttio ramondod. 

34 • :i70l 



216I.A. 633 

Appeal from 

Circuit Court, 
Coflik Coiaaty. 

fliis i» Ml &p9««l ^y d*fen4«nta fron » ju^Si^nt of 
^ $500 f«r plaintiff, filtered on tho rerdlct of a Jury. Th« 
»eti«» was on tb« c&»« for alXogod p«rso|taX injurloa oustained 
by plnlntifr JTuly 51, 191F^, n.» a rosuXt of oollidliij^ with a 
he roe (sad waj^jon ofonod hy 'Hefendants, and drlTon lay thoir oorTant. 

Iho tfftoltfr^tien in 8«TeraX eounto charged negXi^^nce 
generally, la othnr. counts it aXlegod plaintiff's injury was 
'brought about ihrouffjh tho violation of oertain ordinfmeos of 
the City or Chieugo, listiting speed and requiring TshicXec to 
htfrp eXose to th« ri^t hand curb, '*as safety and pni^nos shall 
yorait*, and that "An oYertahin TOhioXe Nuot at all tiMwo lie 
passed on ita left side.* 

defendants pleadfid the general issue. 

At the elese of all the crl donee d<*fendante aoved for 

a directed ▼erdlet in tfxeir faTor, wixieh w««s denied, -^rror on 

this ruling ia «iC%>igaed end seeas to be th^ ptrlnoipal point 

r*li»d upon* ApxM» Hants aay: 

*At the cXone of aXl the vrldenee, there bein^ 
no dispute na to th« e^idtintlKry f«ota, no pr^p^r 
question of f >>ot, n^mtever, wr^s pre&onted for the 
determination of the Jury, fh^! ultinate faete, 
iriiPther or not the plaintiff exercised ordinary 
oar© find waa not guilty of contri\^tory negligence, 
wid wl<ether »r not the d«f«ndi;rtts exereised ^e 
care and cnution and were not s^iXty of negXigenoe, 
<•• were ou^r>lv ouestiene of Xaw.* 


Thift la not a cor?Hect (itt«tcni»nt of th« lav sipplio&l»l« to thit 
olMftu of ori»«9. The ultl*»wt« lucntlons of negllgenoo and con- 
tribute ry ne,i:llg«nc« ere ueuslXy fnx th« jury, and beocsM 
quertiono of law for th« emirt only wh^is tho evidence with all 
ro' sonable infGrenoii» tc ^0 deduced therefrmR, gbh le^^d to only 
one cimclusien. Sc vin« v. ;>< : lano , k57i2 ill. 166; .Mftot^yfjBor ▼• 
Retd . Murdoch A Oo., 173 111, 464; Xiewey v. Chief. f;o Kyn , Co., 
174 UJ , App. 283, The court <li'i not err in suVBitting the 
osBO to the Jury. 

Weitter i&r« the fncta in Xh& onae "unUleputcd" ne 
appellant asye. 

The Hccident oocurred libc^ut 5 o'clook p. m. en July 
i^l, 1915, in the City of iihie^i^o and in SilwA^ukee avenue, a 
public et. reet, extentfinr diagonally nnrthweut to soutbttst. 
The exact point > % which it occiu'red i« diuputed* A plat show* 
ing UiO loci^tien of th« pointe at which the respective partlet 
claim tie collision took pl&ce is in evidence. Berth Bookmell 
etreet runs into Milwaukee avenue fron the north, hut dees net 
eroaa it. On the opposite side of the etireet, Praaeie Place, 
enotJrier public hir^wey, runs into Kilwi^aloee avenue from the 
•outhweet. fhe eat-terly iir«*? <^f Francis jPlaco is s.'brut 100 
feet northwest of the wes^t niAiR of North t^ockwell street 
projected rcrosn l^ilvoulnee avenue. The southeast corner of 
Francis Place ^md Milwaukof' avenue wa» known as So. <?14a» A 
saloon WK8 loeated tvt this number. The point of thn west line 
of Serth Rodcwell street pr;:>Jected to the south siide of liilwsailDM 
avenue, w. it knovm »a No. 2i4C. A cross walk eonnected ttaes* 
two points. There also a eroes walk extending from the west 
oide of the siile wulk of Sorth Bock»fl!tll street to the sale en, 
•a the snutheast comer of Fronoia Place. In the center of 


Uilwaukef arenue vert d^'v;i^)le r*ll«»9r tracks on vnleh str««t eers 
were being o]^ fa ted, 

l'h« teatlBiony for plaintiff t«nd«?d to al&ew thf^t a the 
tiae in Qt^eation he was about to cross fron the wsat sA^ of 
fierth Hookmll street to the saloen at ITo, S148; thnt he loolbid 
h«forr d-jlnj^ so and prw a Tan coning fro» tho aorthvsst on Mll- 
waukttft aTonua; that he saw h<«» would h&7e ties to pass it, mid 
did 80 about 3 f«e>t in front of it; that just ae he pasBftd in 
front of the tna, defendants* horse and «&g<m (which by rertson 
of the siae of the van plaintiff could not see) oenin,: from 
behind en the rl}j;ht htaxd »id« of the van »t a spead of t<»n or 
tselTO milea an hour, strtiok plaintiff and otoised his injuries. 

On the ether hand, aefen'iRnfcs* driver teistifled that 
the rjccident occurred in front of Mo. S140 .^iilwaatoe trvenue, 
that deff'ndnnts* horse wfiks driven at a slo« tret and u little 
behind the von, when the plnlntif f ran ahead of the rtm 
and into the shaft of the «ia4sen. 

Ihe driver of the van teatifiod that the plaintiff 
wallcert tw«nty-five or fifty feet In front of his van; th^t the 
%«a» th;*.t hit plaintiff was also 2fi or SO feet •in front of 
Hjr tea»*; that plaintiff w&s walking «hen hit. 

Other witnesses testified that laintiff wsxllwd in 
teeic of the van and thereafter cawe into cnntAot with the waijon. 
the pitcher in plaintiff's hand corroboriste;* tiie evidence for 
WL« to the effect that he wns on his way to the saloen. There 
is no expj.anntion of why he should have been walkins In the 
•pposite dirffction ae d^titxidnxita claiM. 

In thie conflicting atf^te of tne teatlntmy it wrs 
peculljarly the provinoe of the jury to determine the truth of 
the BattRr, If the ^iory told by the plaintiff and hie wit- 
•eseee * j^ true, then the jury was justified in finding that 





defeodattts >«re guilty of negligence, and thut ^IminXifT wa« 
free fr©» c'^ntrilHiiftry ncgliiijenef^. 

Oa ih« otlMsr h«r<l» if «>ith«r f>ne of th« conf lie tints 
vierie:) told "fay <i<»f&a<Ji»»ta* witrwriia©;; JStS ©tirract, Ihe plain* 
tiff w«s iiuilty 0f «i»mtrioutary aesltgenoe. 

«te are not diaa^tlaf i«jl with th«? ir«»riict 9t tii« 

Jury. 2t folloi«0 th«:it s;h« cnurt did not err ia refuttiag to 

grant d«fQn4itnts « nev tri»l. 

eertaia written 
A|kp<i»llftat5 apy tb'^t tn« c««airt *%rred In givinfi;^ins true t ions 

f»r dl&intiff . but Ro-whsr* In tb^ir brief or -^irgxximnl do t>»y 
point out the auppeecti error. On« of theso InHtruetioas w»a to ^c 
off<r:ct that plRintif f m«d« out a ffrimt faoi« c«»e by showing that 
lie WR» ix) the ex«rci8« of du« c»re ct the ticw of the injury, that 
tiM df;fend&at» er^rf! viol««tin£r, an ordinwieo of the city, ond that 
%3» Tiolation «&stthe prexliB«te oauxo of the injux^. .<^other 
stated Uu.t the lf» of ths? reisA i\t the time in question »..& th&t 
ft vshiele overt»ftkiag Knd pospini^ e,nothe^r going in the B*sme dir- 
ection ehimld peitse to th« left. 

yifteen instructions wav given for defendants covering, 
spparontly, their theory of the o»so trtm every stendpoint. No 
instriiction wuk refused* 

ifm find ao error in thi» record and the Judgnent will 
be :iffi rac si • 

( * 

370 • 24723 





216 I.A. 633 

App«»l fron 

Superior Court, 
Cook County. 


This It Ml ftppoal "by dnfen^ftnt fron a judgHont la 
oTor of plaintiff in an faction for naklioioue prosecution* It 
|l» now bo fore us hy reason of a z^hetirlng granted. 
I The plaintiff, «ho va« Hpnellee, havins died his 

|odaiinietrator htis )>oen eubetituted. 

I fho dedlaration charit^d th»t on Mnreh 1, 191R, defendant, 

|tOntrivincr to Injure plaint iff* good nowo, credit etc, '•beforo 
» Judge of the liunicipAl Court, falsely, BMlicioualy and without 
oay reasonable or probable eauee, charged plaintiff with httYing 
etelen one electric laotor of the Tolue of |f«00, one set of double 
ktamtBs of tht? v«Iut? of ^ftf, one o«w filer of t.he» value of ^78, 
one deok of the value of $15, one eh&ir of the value of |l>o, That 
defendent eauaed a mirrant to issue and plaintiff to be arreeted 
and brought into court, and that the plaintiff was by the court 
fcdjudged "not guilty** and dincharged. 

IBhe jefenAiint pleaded ♦•not Kuilty*, 
She Jury bmught in a verdict for plaintiff of v«00 
•■ whioh the ocjurt entered Judgment • 

Appellant arguoe that plaintiff failed to idiow wont 
•^ probable oauae ; that it is establlahed upon the evidence 
tt»«t defendant in cauelng thu arrest of plaintiff acted in 




good fttith and An trie adyiee of oounaeX aftor m full ditelosuro 
(MT the tiicXn known, t>ad that h^- vlll therefore be protected, Th« 
fTOft^T c<mr.ldcratloa of these points a&icea an oxaaination of th« 
orldenco neceaeary. 

Plaintiff with hie father Jlilias Heoht, and a brother 
najoed Henry, lirt-d at their htam Ho* 2340 Lireroe/ houleTard. Yho 
father ownc^d a bundi wood annuf Picturing plant., loeated at 2409 
Jones street. Zn oon^^^ectien ^ith this businoss he owied end used 
w&gons, horses i?nd ha^mesB, which vere kept in a i.>fjm in the rear 
of his hoae. By bill of sale* dattd July 19, 1912, Julius Heokt 
tranaferred all this property to the United l>tateB Ifood and Coki 
Coapany, of «^iieh defendant v&s president, and receiTod in payment 
^,000 pnr value of the sttoelc of the eorpor^ tien. Thereafter for 
a tine the father and t«o sons worlBsd for the aaid ceayany. 

Tks defendant olaise that he first missed the property 
i^ieh was alleged 'to haTe been stolen Just before Julius Heofat 
left the e]i^l97a«nt Af the corporation ifhioh was <»pril 6, If 14. 
the sons rjuit prior to that tine* 

On Uaroh 31, liU4, defendant, ^^s president of the coaipaay 
snd in its naise snused r written notice to be ssrTed on Julius 
Hecht, in vhloh, aisong other things, it was stated: *Y?a are 
further notified that under a bill of sale froa you to the United 
States »oad I Coke Coa^any, dated July 19, 1912, yf»u s«ld to said 
corporation with other property, the tools, aachinery, equipasnt, 
furniture and fixtures, loeated at 2609 Jones street, together with 
four horses, four wagons and all harness and equipBMit, located 
at 2340 DiTersey bauloTard, and you are directed end notified hero* 
by to delirer to said United > tatee Wood ft Coke C'^Bpnny, and no 
other eo^pMiiy, all of seid property, and to transfer said horses, 
»i^ons. liamoss etc., frOfi the b«m at 2340 DiYersey bnulevard 

• 3- 

%% team »t 1521 Altgold Cftr««it, up©n the property of th« United 
iii»t«« ^oo4 k Coke Coiqpany.** 

After this demnnd was auide most of the property cerered 
by ii)» bill of sftle was delivered to the corporation* but none of 
that which is alleged to have been stolen* 

On f^bru£iry 18, 1915, a seareh warrant w&s iairaed on 
the ccwplalnt of defendant agt^inst the premlaes known as a340 
Divereey avenue. TIm motor and saw filer were fotmd on this 
search in the bsaenent covered with burlap. Theee were turned 
over to the owner* Another seareh warrant was iaeucd against the 
sans preadses en Karoh 1, 1915, and upon this seareh warrant the 
harness was taken off the plaintiff's horses, the property 
taken wns turned over to the owner. The desk and ehalr were not 
found but it appeared upon the trial that they were in the 
possession of Julius Heeht. Plaintiff clct.i«a that the ownership 
of the hamesa w«ts "desperately disputed** It is not denied 
that the ether artiolea were the prQ()erty of the corpor«>tion* 
Plaintiff teetified thixt his f rather, Julius, told hi» to keep the 
saw filer and sietor and that they were aooved frem Jones street 
by plaintiff in dttyllght - "there were one or two men with hia«* 
On cross exaainstion he eeid that he did net reiaeosber the naises 
of these nen, nor oemld he tell when tlie goode were reaoved* 
Julius Kedit testified that in April, 1914, ndUle he, the witness, 
was in the eEq>ley of the United -iitates ?ood & Coke Ciaqpany, 
defendant Os terricke r told bin to tato these goods to a place ¥C0t 
Safety* He says, ''the saw filer, aotor, desk and chair I had 
reaioTsd fron the factory upon Sr* Cjiterrlclnr*s say-so, to take 
thOBi to a plaoe of safety several BOntho before I had been dis- 
^tuuTfod froBi my position by Mr. Osterricker, in the first few 
dsys of April, 1914. I had reported to M r. Os terricker that the 
ttaehinery tfnd all other goods were not safe wher4< they are at 

^TT^ ?. 0? 


2609 Jones Btre«t. It was not running et that time. I reported 
to hin thot the boje in the neighborhood h&d taken off hraso nob« 
end ueed the iron and Hold it for junk. Re said, 'Have you net 
get a place in your bsimT Could ynu not laove it to that plaoe and 
place it there for storafse?* I eaid *Yee, I havo.* He eaid, 
*fSell« go ahead and do it, the ooener the better.* I did it. He 
8Aid I Right aend another nan to go oyer and remove it. Another 
iftftn, Geylord. They were rewoved,* 

Another Itroihtr teetlfioe to overhearing a somwhat 
sijKilar oimvero&tion. This oonvereution ie denied by defendant 
Caterricker, is Inooneisttent with the testiHJony of several 
apparently dialntereeted witneseOB, and it ixi^robable in vltw 
of all the facts and oircumstanoee in evidence. It appears from 
evidence (at first exelud««d by the court, erroneously as no think, 
^t £Lft«>r«ard8 in eubatanoe admitted) that there ws@ abundrmt room 
for the property on the premieeo of the ovmer, th.'it these premises 
«ere guarded, and that no neoe»!i9ity existed for storing the 
property with the Hechts« 

It is clear that the written notice of S^nreh 51, 1914, 
w»a served after the time of this supposed coRversatien. That 
notice was broad enough to cover this property. The retention 
of the property for almost a y«Hr after this notice vnci eerved 
end after the discharge from service of Julius Kecht on April 6tli 
inn'^diately following, and the further retention of r»rt of it 
after the service of the leeroh warrants, are inconsistent with 
the theory that the property was in defendant's possession by 
reasca of any such requost* 

Vo think a cle»r prepond^sranoe of thn evidence indicates 
"ttiAt no such tsigreea»nt was, in ffot, mfide . Assuming this to be 
*»u«. it then affirmatively appears from the record that all the 
facts within nefondant*8 knowledge, or v^ieh with reasonable 


. trT-:,v?: te*a B 

:?!{}« ^^' 

> « 1 •. 'S ■ 



iXliM*.: --''^ 

mtuHfK*^ ' A- 

., . »«(.►. 

XJ afajj;! 

il.3iil5 >. 


diligence cnuXd haTe been lcno«n to him, were eoi^Ttnanlcated by 

hla to hie coiineeX prior to the taking out of the «f~ reh 

warranto, and aloo that b«fer«> cauelng the wftrraat for pl&in-o 

tlff*e orre si to loaue, ho ll)a»i*l8e laid all the fecto hefore 

hie eounael and acted only upon hia advlee after nakiiig a 

flill dlecloeure to hla. In ;^hc& ▼. Mo rend , 191 111. j^p. 11, 

thle court held: 

*^boro a prooe outing wltnooe pre sent a all the 
faoto within his icnowletign^ or th^t he could ha^vo 
aseertalned by re?j^eonable dlllgenee, fairly and 
witU-ut reserre to a state's attorney or sone other 
lawyer of recognized ability and good standing, 
and in good faith acts on his ^idvlce, hei ceonot be 
held reeponslble in an action for isallclous 

«s have held to the sexae offset In -bel r. Downey. 110 HI 
App. 343; Conklln v. .fhitaerc . 132 111, App. 574; Mode an ▼. 
Adaas Co «, 14:j 111. App. 77. And the ^oupreaw Court has announced 
the snne doctrine BUb»tontl»lly in ;^Qwenthapi. , ▼. strong . 90 111, 
'^» An de re on ▼. Friend . 8ft 111. 135. 

Zbo plaintiff therefore failed to prove want 9t 
probable 08Ui»e or oalloo, both of whloh wore neeoo^iary to a 
recovery. ( Glenn v. Lgwrence . !?80 111. Bai.) 1* are satisfied 
fro* a oareful examination of this record that plaintiff cannot 
roeovsr. that appellant's doeedent was la fact Innocent would 
■ate no dlfferenoo. ( I'alaer v. Hichardson. 70 111. »40.) 

The judcoent will therefore be reversed with a finding 
•f fact. 

RETsRsisQ jvsn A yurDao of fact. 






370 - 247;?3 

i« find that i4>p«llaat, Leo Ostcrriolcsr, did not 
prosecute the lult referred to in pXaintiff^a declaration 
without reasona'ble &nd probable cause for Ite prosecution. 

406 - 3^40 


R06A KAinriU^^AS eucuirlx 
Of tta« Ifttit Will «n4 I 

UstvMnt of ^OiiFiPH KAUfM^ 

\ App«ll#lt, 

IVMB ttUm et lO. 


ApiwaX froa 
Glroult Cfurt, 


Thle an&e «»» erlglnalXy « olaia filed In th« FrolMt* 
Caurt of Cook County ag«!.inat th« « at Ate of Joseph KoMfioaa. It 
vae Alloved for the »\m of Il2<il,30« 

The olaiJMiint, «Aio to appolloo Hero, appealed to the 
Circuit Court, vftwrn upon trial before a jury & verdiot for 
olaimtat in the eun of $!^17.f>o vmb returned on which the court 
entered judgnent. Tip elaln was for the purohave prioe of 
potatoes sold to Joseph Kaufww k Co., k copetrtnerahip, DeeenlMir 
39, 1913. 

The defendant upon the trial oontested the foot of 
the delivery of the potatoes, and nov argues that otaiaMilt*e 
exhibits la to 7, ittolusive, and exhibit 9 as noil as e^trtain 
exhibits B to X based thereon, eere liqproperly admitted in 
•Ti-ienee« Theee exhibits 1% to 7 purport to be ordero upon 
the £>torttge Cna^any for the delivery of tha potatoes to KaufauK 
& Coai^ttay. Objection node is th'^t the signature a to theee 
orders were not proired to be in the Handwriting of enployeea 
of the 4«^fendant. It was proved th<»t the orders referred to 
the potatoes involTod in ihln controYern/ and were orders 
issued out of the offioe of KAUfsian It Ce«pany, and th>^t K^uffsan 
It CoKpeny thereby obtained the potatoes. 

«e do not think there was any error in adnittine these 

Q <»"\ ffi ~ir m-^ 

■Lv i^ ^A.. T A r 

Xtit »»! 


^L^JAiiSiii^ .. 

■iiJM . ««v j 

^. ! 

eKhi1i»li«. la fnet tkut nale aod d<illTery of the pot&tiMfi »t Um 
priee of 45 osBta per bu»h«l is ««tfibXl8]ie'i l>«yond »ny r^f^eoa- 

The 4«fenMi reXiou upon mi» ihftt thtt salo ves^s illegal 
becauav th« potatoes «<«r« tuifit for foo(i and thf refore ccmtrRry 
to tho preriaifliio of the health orriinancea ef the city wHich 
az« in evideneo. 

the pot«!ttoee were at the tme of the traasaotion store4 
with the <iNietern Cold ^>torag« Conpaay* JTooeph Kattfatan, lM»fer» 
huying, aent one taulMr, a «an of eiishiteen years oxpcrienee in 
%ht busineaai to laepect theae petatowe Emd he tnapeeted thea* 
They were in had eondltion, and under Tattb«r*8 direction eero 
eorted, the heat onea eaekad end delivered to Kaufauia At CoHpaay. 
Appellant claims thnt the potatooa were condeaned hy the elty 
*ea unfit for >m»an food* cm January 6, 1914, ah<::ut eight days 
after the a;sla« and th»t this preclttdes a roooTery. The order 
of the health doparta»nt with referenee to the potatoes is in 
evidence rmd shave that instead of beia^ condeaned, the potatoes 
were "held for ealirage*. The eTi^nee ahows it was <»tly theeo 
salvaged potatoea, sorted hy defen<iaat*a ova exi^rt, for wr4eh 
payntent vr^s claiaad and allowed. 

the iaeitt w»^b suhnitted to the jtiry whieh f^rnmd, wo 
think correctly, for the plaintiff, ^f«ndant eosylains of 
the eourt*a refusal to giTS defeadaat*e ins miction Ho. 6 
which told the Jury oleianmt could not reoover if the potetoos 
were coatasdnated etc. or unwholeeoa« for hasiaa consus^tion^ 
"riiether or not either ol<iiauuit or Kaufman (k Qva^mny loiow of 
the condition thereof. The ^ury wna otthetantially so insttfueted 
in ethtcr giv^n instructions. 

There is no error in the reo«rd nnd the Jttdgaent vill 
^ ftfflnaed. 


'is ia£iii.t?si*^*» 

.^v ii^A.-.-i 

• l»-7^ 



4t0 • 248^a 1. #^-^ 

I. lAJHYA LUli*,^n COM?MY. / )Zlol*A» f>04 

a eorpe ration^; I ) 

Appellant,/ ) Appoal fro» 

Cireait Comri, 

▼»• \ i I ! 

%. I J Ooolt County, 

JAMBS L. uAmme •% h*t / I 

\ / 

Ap|M!ll«nt was oonrplRinnnt N»low and appeals from a 
teerte whieh dlsmiaeftd f«r want of oqulty ft ^111 to foreeXoi« 
m clftiJB for ]w»dhiaiiic*i3 lion anountlng to $959 ,07 • T1a« oattM 
«a« heiiird upon exooptiena to ths nastor** report, vhieh ex* 
oeptlone vere orerruled, end e Avtane entered as reoaagsssended 
by the aaater. 

The l}ill «'« in the usual form, fhe an ewer, wiiiah 
ms joint ».nd eeveral, set up that eoRiplainmit had agreed to 
valTe any and ell right to a lien upon the payaeat to it of 
|7C0; that defendanta in imking loans esu'i taking their titles 
relied upon these repreaent^itions end agreenenta of eonplainaat 
la th»t refipeot; that after $bOo had been paid on aecount to 
eoflq>lHineint out of the loan made in reliance upon theiw 
representations nn^i agreexmnta f»t complainant, oenplainaDt 
failed and refused to cciaplete ite contract t" furnish lumber 
lAien re que ate d by defendants so to do; thr.t the coB|>l8inant 
was therefore estopped from aaaertiai?. its lien. 

The ffiots appear to be that on April 14, 1916, Janes 
X*. Uareno waa the aimer in fee simple of the prenises, «hiah 
eonsiated of two lots, ttnd that one Xesttitoiw, held the legal 

• £V 

title in trust fear UtCeamt, tmA nftervArds eonreysd the sans to 
on* !Uccio, who also hAld it in trust for X»r«Bo; that liArono 
began tho constrlaetion of two houses upon the prensioeo and nada 
a contract for ttas lumbar with the eo»pl»inctnt, agreeing to pajr 
a reasonable price the re for « and to BMUce final pay»rnt et th« 
date of the l»fit delivery; that plaintiff cami3«ne«d to deliver 
the luesher on April 14, 191A, and oemtinued to icake deliveries 
up to Auiruet 26, 1916, end up to th&t tint delivered lumber of 
the value of 51,459 .07, 

Oa Jttnt 2Z, 1916, Mareae aegotintcd two loans from 
the defendnnt Oarfleld f&rk atate Savings Bank, la the m\m of 
#4,350 each, and to aeoure theee loans, cauaed the prerdeea to 
te conveyed to the Chicago title h Yruet Coiqpvnny, as trustee. 
Itfore Making the loan the hank desMided and aoeured a sworn 
stateaent from Barano as to the lien dalaa against the prenisea. 
This states3ent as furnished stated that JTaaMs L. Harene was the 
genera.1 con tractor, and that "the following are Ute nanes of all 
perties having contraets or suboontraets for specific portions 
of the work or for material * * and of the tot&l ejaounta due 
and to be com due each, to fully oomplete said contracts , ssid 
that the iteas icentlonecl include all labor and material required 
to eoaplete said buildintr according to plans and specif icstlons,* 
In its appropriate pla.ce appeared the n«aae of complalnsnt as 
oentr;,ctor for "luraber" and the 'total to c ample te» was stated to 
^ $700. This statement wne mad* by liarene ufter a consultation 
with complainant 'b president and with his authority and eonseat. 
^^ agreeraKnt betwaen l^areno and complainant was that the bale nee 
•f complHlnant*8 claim would be secured by a third mortgage. 

Sefendaat William c. Thompson had eharge of the matter 
^^ the bank and upon receiving the etateimnt made intiuiries of 


thft secretary of oonqplAinont, «ho verified it by cnral etate* 
nmatn, and also on J«ne IH, X9X6, ns^rote the bank a» follewe, 
"Ve will r«l(*H»e t«e t>ro»fX?.t buiXdlngs located at 414 &ad il6 
Seuth Kllboum sivenue, Chicago, Illinois, for the sum of $700. 
TImso buildings in question are for Ur, Jo^raes 1.. Stareno.** 

Thsroupon on Jime :37th Teseitore and kareno gave sa 
order on the bank in favor of coisplainant for the gum of 500, 
iHiieh 8t»ted on its faoK that eoisplainant tras the oontrnGtor for 
the luKber, that the eontraet price was §7rc, and that co«- 
pl»infmt vrr>» entitled to a ^mymnt of,0&OC. This orier was 
Cfished by cowpl'iinttnt and it» reoeipt in "/ritiag apposra upon 
the baok of it* The work oo the building whi^ had been stepped 
becaaee of Inek of funds was again resuaed upon the opening ttp 
of the loan. Ae a general settlement of the i^olo building 
enterprise, one lot w? o trf^naferrod to defend?*nt Thoi^iion, 
snother to defendsjeit Freed, Hnd a second trust dsed executed to 
defendtmt Vilip Meydrsch Co. 

90 think the chonoellor w»q Justified in finding from 
the eyidence thst ftll the d< fendinta, in taking their reepectivo 
titles, relied upon the representations of ooflsplainant n» they 
appeared in the sworn affiduvlt of lEareno, the receipt of tho 
cea^lainsnt thereon, the letter of coniplainant and orol 
representations of its officers, 

the appellees who therefore took their respectirs 
titles relying upon these representations, and with^jut 
knowledge of any aureenient of $£areno to give eoiq>l&iiniint a 
third mortgage, will be protocted, and tie a^^ainst thsa, 
complainant is now estopped \.o ntaintain a lisn for aor«.> than 
*'^* Heidenblutt r. -tudolpn . ISS 111. 316; Bowc r» v. Jarre 11 . 


210 IXl. kpp, 256; CoflBBttrotnX Lftap ^ Bld£. /i»an . y. Treritt, 
160 111, 390; Turner ▼. Branoo . 249 111. 396. 

¥h« pertiee tn Interest requMat«d coa^lainaat to 
fumiBh the luniber n&ceesary to complete Its oontr^ict, whleh 
it declined to do, and defendants were compelled to pur elcis^^ tM 
It elBcv^re at a ooet of ft\)(%t fSCC* In ▼!«« of this wilful 
refusal to ooB^lete its Oi^atr&et, it cnnnot now \m alloired « 
lien. Harley v. ^Rnitary district . 226 111. 213; Petersen ▼. 
fttsey , 237 111, 204; grrimt v. ceXumbia jieetem Kills. 196 
HI. App. 14. 

The deeree will be affimxl. 


«S - 249X4 


• Bifeiidant in Brr 

Ti. \ 



|£l6lA. 6» 

arret to 

llunioipal Court 
of Chle««^o. 

i^laiatlf^ to Krror. 


mLiwmn THE opisieu of thk comti , 

Plaintiff in error w&o ch«rg«d with tho l.srceny of 
lift froifi one Thosma i^. KToao, w&irod <& jury, ontered » plea of 
•lot guilty", was fomnd guilty «tpon tri«l by the coui't, Mftdo 
Motiona for a now tri»l imd in m'rosit of Judlgeient» both of 
w^ieh wore ororrulod cmd judiipent entered. 

Sveno testified thi^t while walking do^n Broedwoy, 
in Chioago, Eoveaber 8, 1©1R, nt about 10 o* clock p« a., 
defendant, a woiB«n, motionetf to him from >^orosa the street; 
tlukt be croosed ©rer to wbor» ehe waa under the belief that he 
we* &equ«inted with her; that when he found im did net know 
bor, h« iitten^t«d to go away, but the dct&ined hin, followi^d 
fein down the street, and itivsn he entered a httllwr.y of « building, 
wnt in with hilt; th >t while they were there dofond^mt put her 
lund into one of hio pockete, extrnoted & roll of isoney; that 
•f this B«ount, $1& dropped to the floor which he picked up end 
eslced defendant t givo back th«! rest of the money, which she 
refused to do. thut he ecnqpleined to the by-otandors and later, 
io an officer, wh^ took all the p»rtie« to the station. 

The defendant testified, "I lookc^d ntcross »t hla end 
*»• looked 8t as on ay side. Ke eaas acroae tho street, and when 
*»• «ot a fsw feet of ae he said, 'How do you do?« I oaid 'How 
do you do^i jj^ saye, »You and I hsTS aet before, l*rv»n«t we?»" 




fthe alii« says wh* told hli» UMy h»4 not n»t b«for«, bat h» in* 
sistod th@y h»d, and ftC(m««4 fo«r of t«klner $&0 from hln, on « 
pr«Tlo«» eac slen, and th«it 8h« told him, "io will go riijlit to 
tb« polioe otailoa rtovr &n4l a«til« it*** 

She faxtli«r »t»y9 they went right into the hallway ond 
«iTgii«d th«r« about tht iaiitt«r» but sha d«iti«c thore v«i» luny 
OMHiey hftndJLod thsr* sod dc^aioa thai «h« took ^ny aoney. xiim 
BdMite, hoiMT^r. th»t £▼«»» oocBpl«in«<t to a a&ilor on the otroot 
thit vhA hod t»iitn hie money, and e&lled a o&b in tidiieh tho 
throe rodft togothor to tho police atHtlon, 

Tho prinoiptal contfntion of plaintiff in ftrror i« ttat 
tho Judgment io dgaiaol the weight of tho ovidonoo. i« do not 
think tho recor^i o«ll« for <i r^Tsroal en that ground. %llo 
neither ::>cm8 nor d«;fendaat give a frank ae^cunt of the cirount* 
ot^noos attending the treunasction, we think there ia no reaeon* 
able doubt that defendeat got hio soney. 

Plaintiff in orror claimi thist the offentc proved ««io 
gread l&roeny» boomuee the teetlnony for the pooplo «a» to tho 
effect thfit thero wr.o ^lOCr in tnt roll of nonoy tnken. Thoro* 
fore it is Lvjrgued tho liunioipal Court h«td no Juriodiotien of 
the offenee, and tho notion in arrost of Judgnont ohnuld hatFO 
been grnntod, citing i'^ople ▼. ihitmnn. 243 ill. 471, Tho 
isfors&tion here io unlike Xhx one which was held def«otive in 
th&t Cj.fie . Moreover, txa the *^tato pointa out in thia omsiO, 
the court may havo found ths>t the aaicunt taken waa only #15, 
t*»tte glTing the ;iefen'lf>nt the benefit of any d^jubt. If ao, 
•^ would haTO no ground for complaint, 

I'he JudgK^nt will bo affirae(S. 



ALXGi ^* OmmMiJ&J^ Mad XD^ 
tto« lm%.. will und t^fttniwiif «f 


flUieSS LGirF^^R, Indlridially 
Ml4 liyi •ameuttix of th« ^iat« of 



ciRccxT amm, 
COOL ccsmrrY. 


This is ran Mppefkl from an lnt«rXoout9ry order mppelnt* 
lag a receiver «f «Brtaiia pr«mis«». !'&« ]>reci@®<tiBg In ti^leli 
Um aps^lntneni Wfitt iuk<s« «»» in the netnr* of a oreaitom bill 
ViMied on a Ju<i|{i&qnt equine i ^IXXl&ie X«o«ffler iwd otto«ro, vhicfei 
Jll48»»at h«d boon &Xlo^d as a claJLa ac<^iBat the oatAto of 9ai4 
VilXiBn i.e«ffXer by thi« Frooisiie Court of Cook Co\m%y* 

Tho real eotato for wtdoh tho r«£eelv«r vms a|»peint«d 
io olalnod by certain 'latenA&txX*. Iho OMtplainHat Mllot«d th«t 
tiM titlo had b««n tr«naforrod by tbn deo«a«od a f«w days b«fero 
his doath and in fraud of hi« oredltora. The ox-dor appQinting 
tht reo^iTor vao ontorcd Cctob«r l<t, 1919, after anewtr md 
notioo • 

It ia ttdnittod the ord<»r «e:a erronocHio be cttuoo it 
neither rotiuired & bond by the eomplMinanto to def^ndanto nor 
oxoa««d gl-ving of it *for good OKtnee ohoum* «s required by tho 
•tatute« Joneo & Addington'o Annotated -^^tatutoo. Vol. 2, pago 
X«e6; iffurdU KeYleed ^tatutoo, in? Edition, paffe 303, 

AppellfSAO olaijt, however » that this error iraa oured 
^ an order entered Oetob<!?r 50th thereafter, w43 ieh provided 

1^ h fi ./u. I r^' f 

tluit • 

"In ll«u of %hft reo«iT«]r h«rotofor« appointttd by 
order of this court, entereri oa th« 14tto d&y of 
OctftlMtr, 191^ * • 1M> and to hi»r«l}]r Appoint«d ro* 
otlTor ♦ ♦ It is further ordered, ft<i3u>lg<>d «nd 
dfforoed that tho oBplminimtfli glre bond to the 
dofcndunts 7rimeea LoeffXer and Frank Lo«ffIf$r 
la tho len&l n\m of 2,000,0C end naA^CO dollfsrs, 
with fturetioa to h§ apj^roTOd by this court, eon* 
ditimied to piqr all <lf*ffiag«tt, inoludlag rvasonablo 
o-ttomoys* f«os auotcilnftd by ro^aoo of tb« appelatnoat 
•ad &oX» of sfinid rccf'Ar&r in ct»,0« the «iq;>olatnomt of 
such rf^ioeiTor is rerokf^d or MUt Hold** 

rjid it a]»p« curing to ttve omxrt thtat the conEplalnftnts 
art non-retiidont of th« state of Illinois, and thnt it 
will require bosk tine to obtain oaid la»t m^ntiimed 
bond, and it further appearing to tb« court th.^t the 
acid Thi'uaii y, folXku^^hn has boro before boon and now ia 
eollccting unld rents, is&iiaa and profita of e&id real 
oataie for aaid Francos Locffler «md aeid Frank Lo«ffl«r, 
and thtit BO injurloo will be nastal»9d by SAid d«f«nd«ata 
if the bond r«<iuir«d b^r the statute before th« (uppointauant 
of n r« :^iTer i{> not filea at enee, and it furtbor app«ar>» 
Ini; to tlw eourt thrt due notioc; haa boon giTon of this 
Motion, sad the o %! rt upon full hoaring boine of tho 
i^inion .hat a recolTor ought to be appointed without 
aueh ^ond being required to be filed »t once, it la 
therefore ordered, adjudged end decreed that the 
ecmipl».lnanta tw, »nd they «.re hereby given thirty dstya 
tiaae froai the date of tkw tntry of thia order in w leh 
to file eaid b«ad hfiretofcre ©rviered. ♦ * • 

It ia a|»parent, we t'lak, th^tt the order of October 

3<Hh is nlso err<3neoua. It haa been taeXd ia aeteral eases that 

a provision in the order Appointing a receiver, tht^t the bond 
to be given b/ the coa^li'lncnt shall be filed and »,pprevGd at 
a later date, is not a ccn^lianee with the etetute . isyree v. 
tjj^ arahim ^tea»ship C, j^ j^. Co,, l^C 111. App. 137; Gibberaiai^ 
▼• >>tBngel . 306 111. ^p, SHMJ; M i^raata h, ^>ahoeneeke v. Chicaatd 
Bil* « Urutit iJ£,, 170 111, App. 387j h /^ft. g» yiii tlc v. dwin 
?helpa et ai., 177 111. App. »»; ^spry I^iwber Co , v. Hardin , 
l^a ill, App, 8€; «agon v. UoopiRr , 16 6 ill, App, &37, 

tender the provisioneof the statute the curt h&d the 

90 wr for good eaiisa ahoim^ upoti notice and fall hetiring, if it waa 

^the opinion th«t a receiver ousht to be iqjpoiated without eutih 
"••d, to ao find and order. This the court did not do. The 
•tUr Of October 14th asist, thsrefore, be reversed. 


ALZC^' H. ammiMAF ana xoA 

QMW.]il£:AW, na •mcutrlece of 
Umi Xaiftt wlXl and tttstaneat 
«f UAH AH A, (mr.g^8JUi' Ay, Act w ft 
App* lice's, 


ffUHU:^^ LO^IF^^R, ln',Uvi;tU6i.;y 
«nd cift executrix of the eapii* 

wd FHiai.% i»oswixn. 

«16I.A. 634 



IIH. P iaDlKfl JU/SXaS MiffCHBtt 

Thio io «n e-ppeRX !igr eorintn d«f«nd«inta froa on 
laterloouiory order appoint lag « re e« Ivor entered CetolMr 
30, XB19. 

It Rppears fron the order tb <^ ite ttppoiaintat 

purported to bo a»<io in Xleu of & fo nwr eppeintttent hy 
on order entered in tlie eoao e^uee Oetobor X4, 19X9. m 
oppe«d wfxa taJcen to tl^le eourt fros thnt ordsr, ond it 
hoo been rercroed. The f ae' e have been etated in Um 
opinion tbio dny filed in thnt oppeal betwetm t'X^ o«Hi 
fortlee, general nuinber ^68 26. 

?or the re< eonn ■nsl forth la that opinion 
thio order aMot aloo be reveraed. 


A.I ' 

438 • S47n 

JOHli Lm'MU, \ 




1*ER0Y 8. VlLS(m et al., 


Apf««l fren 
j Girouit Court, 

} Cook County. 


Ihle ie an appeal fron a decree netting aaide and 
declaring null and void an inatrunent purporting to \m the 
last will and t9ataa»nt of Mary Ann Luaaein, deooaaod. th(«re« 
tofore adnltted to probate, and also aettlng aside and da* 
elaring null end void a gift alleged to have Iwen nade %y 
bar prior to her death. >SiO aiiall talae up the pointa relied 
upon for rcTeraal in the order presented in appellante* brief. 

1. All Of the apvellrmta were naJMd aa benef iciariea 
in said vill, and tvo of them aa executrioea of the aame. ^liile 
these two ae individual a «rith the other named henefioiariea, 
mvB decref^d to pay ooats they are not taxed vith ooata na 
executricea. It la contended thnt they ahould have been taxed 
eith ooata in their official tuB well aa individual capacity , 
Aa auQh executrioea they cannot eoKplain, and their peraonal 
latereata were such aa to justify the diacrction of the chan- 
Mllor under the statute in apportioning the ooata aa decreed. 

8. Aa Gonplainsnt, the aurviving huaband of Kary Ann 
ItttaseB, deee&aed, renounced the benefita under her alleged will, 
it ia olaiaed that he thereby a.dnitted ita validity and waa pre- 
•Xttded from bringing thia euit. So authority ia cited in 
■ttpport of thia contention, with which we do not agree. 

3. On croaa examination an expert vltneaa for 


?^ .i\»i 1.^ 

PS* li-'i ■*';'-■ 



oomplfiiriBnt, » phjraicltya, testified that Im diHi^«d |10 por 
hour for his Ximm me 4 witness. Having to t«atifi«d ne find 
no error in ftustaining objections to theoe further i|uestiont, 
"How aueh will th^it l»et* and "Oe you expect to get :50 for 

A, It is urged th»t the chanoeller reeeiTSd incoBq;>«teat 
evidence. In n esse heard \>y the ehisnoellor or without a jury, 
"no improper or innfiterial evidence will he presunsd to httvt 
influenced the court in rer^ohing a dcoiaion where there is 
sufficient proper evidencs to justify th« judgnaent." ( KretXing 
^' l££i]fi«H£t 21 f^ m- 19^» 198.) 

f>. It Is urged thiRt there was no evideno* establishing 
undue influence, that e priwa fmeie oase of t)ie testsnsntary 
otipsolty of th testatrix w-.a et»tatoXished, and th't the deeres 
is contrary to the nanifest weight of the evidenae . ^ shall 
give a brief suoffBavy of the evidence bearing on these ccntentimui. 

At the tiae Mary Ann Luseem executed said purported 
will and testoiaent she wciS confined to her hone with an illness 
that resulted in h^r def^th six days later. f:>he was 7^ years nf 
age, «md had lived with her husband, John Luseesn, in apparent 
hariM«y during their aarriage of nearly 50 ye&rs. ly a previous 
■arriage she had a son fros whos en his death shs inherited about 
$10,000 ^ieh htad been given to hiu by her husband, Jdlm Luseen. 
In fact, moat, if not all, of the money and projterty so purported 
to be devised, was the result of his labors and aceuwulatiens. 
^1 of the beneficiaries nsJKd la the will were her relatives, 
either nieces or nephews except «ie graad*nieoe and ©ne grand- 
aephew, Leasy f. nison, son of her niece, ?lla Jl. wilscn. 

In l)«? comber, 1916, the deceused beoafl» 111 with 
lobBT-pneusMmia and w. s attended by a physician frws DBcealjer 
18th until IJeccmber 26th, idien she died. On the 19th her 



. r 


huabjoid called In eaid BXla miatm to Bare for h»r, Th» testimony 
f»r appellee wa« to the effect that ihe was In euch a aerloua 
eandltion on the 2Cth that a consultation of physicians wus had, 
•ad an exa>ftin«tl«n by the betwirn 5 ftn4 6 o*eleck th t evening 
diicloeed em ndranced state of the dieeaRo, a low physical con- 
dition, high fewr, pulao and respiration, one lung greatly con- 
gested, end an apparently h««y state of a^ind , and at that t in she 
breathed with diffioulty and could speak hr.rdly above a whiaper. 

On the part of defendants the testimony of the witnesses 
to the will w«e th»t on th«t sEuoe evening betaaen 8 and 9 o'clock 
(Dec. SO) she cfarce nut of her bodrooa in a kimono, oat by the 
table and conversed with those present relative to the provisions 
nf the will for abr.ut forty minutea, and then executed the will; 
that no one was then preaent except said ^lla tfilson, her a on, 
l«Hay il»oo, one Fuller, an attorney procured by LeKoy to draw 
the will in accordaii'^ with meiaoranda furnished to hi« by said 
l««»y. and one ^dwarda. an associate of LeRoy in the bank where 
both were employed, who was called there by LeR«y far the ex resa 
purpotse of being a witneae to the will, and bringing with him 
toferraction from the bank booka aa to the exact a»o«nt nf the aiok 
w««i'B .i«po8it therein, for which she signed a withdrawal slip 
on one of the banka forisa alaa brought by Bdwarta. The testimony 
•f and isdwarda tendfld to ahow s»nity on her part and 
freedom from anything in th© natuw of undue Influenoa . 

Ihe tcBtiifflony of the physicians attending her on that 
•▼tning. however, wag tn the effect thr.t her physical condition 
*»• too lew to permit of any such interview *a teatlficd to by 
■'id witnesses to the will. There w^s aoae teeti«ony by thea 
«»« *lao by a medical expert, bearing on her aental condition. 
^«t perhapa was inconpetent. i^laregarding it. howevar. e t^ank 

"-« «. .urrici.„t ..ia.„c r„» th. ,„t. .„. oi„u..t.n«. 


:r.B 10 

atfadlng the proeuraUtm. ,i«p»ration «id . x«cutlon of the will 
U .up,ort the conclusion of th* e.urt th.t It w.. obtained un<ler 
««<l«. i„flu«„ee. The evidence tenda etrongly to show th«t eh. 
r.-alned In bed under the progre.«iTe <leYel09«.«nt of the 
from l>eoe«ber 19th until ehe died, six day. later. ^ th«t sh. 
w«. induced thr.«gh the Influence ef her relative e ^u« m „u«*i 
f.eWe condition to «!«„ a will w.,oHy for their benefit except 
for the amount of ^6 left to her hu«b^nd. Although he was oho* 
to be in or neer the building .t tl^ tin. of U» ewioutlon he 
had no teowledee of the will r.nd remined ignorant of It. 
exletenoe until it w.e preoented for probate. There wae further 
•Tl*.„ee th.t ..n th* erenlng the will wae exeouted. «« aforee«ld, 
Sllft Wilaon refu«»d per«l»«ion to coiaplainanfe brother end hi. 
nephew to see i}}f patient. 

It w«e .aid in ^t^jag^r ▼. Ooldy . 225 111. 394, that 
-proof of undue Infiuenoo «ay be wholly circumot^tial and in- 
frentlal.. (p. 40C) If th. ch^cellor credited the testimony 
Of the phyeiclan. «e to Mr.. Lue..ea»a condition two or thre« 
h^ur. before the alleg.4 time of eacecution of the will then all 
the ot^^er attendant circumatance. »ight be dee«rd eufflclent to 
•»^Port the inferenoe that the will wi^ the reeult of uadno 
influeace of tho«. i„ «ho«e Intere.te u w.e .ade. «,d w. would 
aot be dl.po.ed to dleturb the chancellor* a finding, on which 
the decree 1. ba.ed. ^«t who said in ja^land y. gawbu.h . 204 
111. 384. on page 392, ia particularly appropriate to the fOct. 
•nd Gircumetance. of thl. caae: 

writtr«^r * '•^^^ ^"^ written, or procured to be 
ciimlli* i " ^*'?'* largely benefited by it. au«h 
circuMtan.e excites Btrict«r scrutiny «nd romiire. 
^oui«I ?^^^ ?^ volition and capacity. Thrpro^? 
njie^l^^j^ »uch c Bea. ro^.t be such aa fully ^ ' 

not i2. ! '''"'^ °'' ^""""y ^^"^ ^^^ teatator wa. 
not i«5»««d upon, but knew irtiat he was doi«g, and 


'•.nS?' ^ff''!£^ 



J. >. *r #»; .' ( . /il 


whut dl«pot$iti<m he was making of hla prnpvrty 
triMn h« madtt hl« urili. The ;\etire ag«noy of 
th« iMinefioiary of » will in procuring it to 
be> dra<<m, especially In the absence of these 
vine have at leset equal olaii&B upon the justice 
'>f the teutiutor, end vhere the testetor is en* 
feebled by eld age and dieeRc^e, is a cirouznstanoe 
which indies. tea the probuble exereise of undue 
influenoe. « e • t^he feebler the mind of the 
testator, no matter fron >«h^^t oause * whether 
from 8iciuies3 or othe^-wlse - the less evidence 
will be requirtfid to Invalidate tiie will (ST such 

6. It is clalaed that there wne a cos^ieted gift 
inter yjtob nade by Kary /jm Xttssen after she executed said 
will. There was eTldenoe that she Inquired of said attorney why 
she could not nake ifflstedlate dispoaltloa of her property, and 
when told she could by giving her pr perty away during her 
lifetlsB signed a withdrawal slip brought by Edwards for the 
exaet aaount of her deposit In the bank and said to ImHty Wilson: 
"I want you to distribute this property Juet exactly es »y will 
says." The next morning said fllson and Bdwards brought to 
her a package containing her securities whieh she handed back 
without opening it, telling then to divide it and the money in 
the savings ticcount as stated in her will, or, nu otherwise 
tSBtlfied to, "Take this and distribute them aocording to the 
terms of the will.** LeRoy then to<^ the paekage and retained 
It in bis poi session until DoccKber a9th, three days after her 
death, «dien )» undertook to make a distribution to the several 
donees. It Is contended that this w.>« not a complete gift, and 
in that we are disposed to>agree. ^ think It la clear that 
^Hoy Vils<m was by sueh statements made the agent of the donor 
to deliver the property to the dcmees, sad t>iat his agency wa» 
revoked by her death before delivery was wade, and thet, the re- 
fers, no title passed by w«y of a gift to the donees, ( trubey 
▼. lease, 240 111. 513.) 



BegardXess, ther«ifore, of tbe questiem of th« 
•ttfflciency of ih« proof to aut^tain e finding to the «ff«ct 
ihlit th« duee^^aed was of unsoun:! Bind ^t the exoeutidn af 
ih* vill, "»• think tbe ftTidenoo sufficient to austein the 
teeree setting; it aside as having been procured under undue 
influence and in setting aside the gift as not hering ^en 
eea^lete. T^ie decree will be affimed. 


^76 . 24830 

vstnD J 




Appeal from 

Circuit Court, 
Cook County. 

m. BAr„a «i,v.HH. THB ei-x.-ao. 0, xm com. 

Of 17000. *^wo a Terdiet 

th«« fireo ha. occ«rro4 one i^ofc.. ^^ ,„ 

« «P«rt»ent building ovmed by appeU«„t A«n.i i 

^. ^ ' «FPeAi.imt. App«lie« w;.* one of 

M. t.„.„t, »„. „.„,„, „„ ,^ ^,_^ ^^^^_^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^ 

V *'""•"'• """ - -"* '-'^■' ""-o«r^h. Of .„« 
-^«.. The l„t .„ ,„ „ ,^^^„^^ ^^^^^ ^ ^^^^ 


P«-» .r ..„„. p„.^.. ,„„,„^^„^ ^___^^_ ^^^^^^ ^^ 

POAioenen, gathered there st th*. *<«- * .^ 

it i„ ,, *^"^ **^ ^**« **^1'^ fir«. and 

Ao allege<t ^Imt they mre in rcanoni.- * 

4. " 2:'espon6e to appellee 'a oayinff 

^oed for eyerythlng X »ay ^,,. .hi. i . 
Unu 4, ' *^^*' *' **"« P^«i« talk. 

a 8a .A.iaif 

. ?vf i'V', 


StiVD 0. 


ThP detfismtttry irordtJ charged in tha third count «r« 
that in anowRr to the q[u«ation, *Do you accuse any one of 
setting this fire?* appellant answered, "Yes*; und when asked, 
••hot* ftttswered, •Domseif.* The pleading contains innuendoes 
connooting these expressions ^ith appellant and snid fire. The 
verds charged as defanatory in the third co^mt were spoken in 
t^i« course of an examination of Kpp«llant held hy the ^^tate 
Fire Marshall or his depuV* 

Many points are urged for a reTcrsaX. Ve shall 
refer to only such as are neees^ary to coneider« 

It is first urged that there should hei.i« heen a 
directed Tenliot Iseoaus^ the oooasions of speaking the werda 
rendered thOR priTileged. and there w@s no proof of actual 
Bftlioc, as required in a o^i^e of privilege, the law in suoh a 
ease net presuming salice. ^^at night be our view had the 
motion been confined to the second count we deen it unneeeeeary 
to etate, &a there was evldienee, we think, landing to support 
the first two ooimts. It is appellant's theory that the words 
spoken An the occasion referred to in the first two counts, 
sore intended for public officials, t1»: Polioenen and fire- 
Msn, whose authority whs suc^ a» to zaake the words priyileged. 
The oTidonce does not disclose that the policemen were o»lled 
upon to exercise tJieir nuthority in roiy w&y, and no privilege 
WEB conferred fro» the fact thnt the words were used in the 
presence of firenen 1^0 had undertaken to investigate into 
•!• origin of the fire. 

It iii cl^^ifflsd the court ia^roperly admitted, and 
refused to strike, evidence T&ri«knt from the alleged defamatory 
•trds iittenipted to "09 proven. The various expressions referred 
to *r« es follows: *Ihen yu are Uie ssan that set fire to 


this building"; "you ©r» th» m&n that a«t the place on fire*; 
"you are reaponaiMe tc^r thic flr«, jmd I r< peat it n-gain**; 
■you a.Tv (.h« B»n th^t I &ooub« of setting the fire «ad ym» 
<»Bly» y^>Ji 'M'e the rnan X hold rc'i^ponsible*'; •'I Aoouse yon of 
burning thia Vvuilding nnA I repe it It." vpp«ll«mt UJTg«» th&t 
thee^ expree ione at liMiot «rr« Merely otiuiTalttnt to thOM 
ciuiTged in tiie first t^^ count* of th« declitration, and for 
thut ror>i;on m?re Inatlftiasiblo . 'Sim prlnoipal wor4a deelAr««l 
ea aft d«f«unatory 6ro "yot' &r« the rum that is ro sponsible for 
this (fire); 1 deliberately acouao Mr. Dom«eif of this" 
(fire). They have further sitcnifiojaioe in relation to the 
words that pr<9e«ded then, "thy ehould X give protection to 
people *ho »«t ay hf'U5?e on fire,* The rule bearing *n this 
•ubj«ct hu stated in HBQgoa v, ?^cCurl»y . 14r> 111. 626, 6;'>S, 
ie: *Hot thnt the * sub stance of tha ^ords alleged usual b« 
proved, but thut the words hlieged in th» dsoiaration, or 
enough nf tnesi to an^^unt to a ohiirge of the particular offense 
alleged to have been Imputed, mu st be aubstemtially proved,* 
It Bay be doubtful if>ieth!>r hobm of theee txpreouions Qotee within 
this rule wlisn con^^ldered with r^ferenoe to vh«t offense the 
vordo deolarf^d on lu^puts . But a diecussiMi of thesi vmder the 
tetdmieol rule is of no practictal avail eo long u» we feel ooaq;>elIed 
to reverse the JulgEuent on other grounds. hiile we onnnot read 
Uie evidenoe without ennoiuding thixt tits Judgnttnt vn» exceseivs* 
•▼en after th« renittitor, yet we tMnk the verdict co Id not bs 
•ustained la th« !«boonse of proof of d«fendMit*H pecuniary ability. 
^1» only proof thereon le th?..t he earned the building referred to, 
^t what it ws'S worth, whether he owned it ole&r of eneumbranee, 
•»<» whKt, if eneuwbersd, was the vilue of his equity, «nd whether 
he had >ny other prr>perty or inoone nowhere appears in the record. 


lor wa» there proof oT lo.a of reputation, poeition or znoney, 
ao chHTgod in the declarntiOH to support olalia of special 
d«m«ges. Both the irerdlct ni Ju<3gtaenl Indio&te th« inclusion 
of Tindlctivc (Inm^eH, and without proof of the pecuniary 
ability of appellaat timy cannot BLand. ( Beeoon t. Coocard 
5£.. 167 111. App, 561, 573; g, ^. ^ y. ^. Cc. t. ..aith. 
67 111. 517; i^uliia ▼• 3P«igenberg. Us 111. He, 146.) ^ 
do not a^ree with appellant that there ia no o».u»e of aetioa 
Bteted in th« dcoiarution. but t.> ink the judgnent ahoald \m 
rercreod tmA Uis ceuue remanded for tYm w- neons atated, and 
that other errora ooinplain«d of are not likely to wi«* m 
another trial. 


J'+fjJdC ^P.tiii- 



WILLIAM H. PRinnz. JTr- and 
iby<Y A. FHinosr, 

Ik iiiA/QKiS «t aX., 



I 216I.A.685 

) Intf rXocutory. 

Appeal froa 

Oirouit Court, 

Cook County. 


Ihia la en appoaX by the Bttnk of Coinnitreo and Savlnga, 
on* of aoYer&l dt^fendanta to an anandad and auq^pIeatentaX bill 
Ifi dianoory, to r«T«rao an interXooutory order of injunetion 
roatr&lning aeid bank fron daXivaring or otherwieo tranaferring 
eert&ln negotiabXa notes in ita poasession, and aXao restraining 
othar defandanta fron aasignlng othor negotial»X« note a in thair 
yoaaaaalon, aLX of which notes wore txaeuted by oonpXainanta 
to their own order and deXivered, endorsed by ttiem, to a broker, 
m» JoBe^ iiaiata, to find purehauera therefor* 

Said order w&a <>nte^d after due notice nn exhibiting 
aaid amended and auppXemental bill of oe^plaint aa Torified. 

It appeara from the averoenta of aaid biXX that 
e(wpXalnnnt« executed and deXivered their deed Of tr«at to the 
Ghiaago Title h Truat Co., ae truatee, to aeoure the payBieat of 
•i|^t prineipnl notes aggregating |10,00C, and aeventy-four 
late re at coupon notea eridencing interest thereon; that two 
tf the principal notea were for $2,0Ce each, duo reepeotiYeXy 
in three and four yaaxa from thei* date, and the remaining 
*ix principal notes vNsre for $X,000 esoh, due f Ito years frois 
their date; that after aaid notes were deXiYored to st^id 


• 2- 

Bai&tfli he cieliverod \vo of th«n to iim tru«te<»8 of the AmrieMl 
Credit TruiB^ and the otteer four to said bank as collate ral 
Beoarlty for hie «im prior indebtedneee, vith^ut the itnowledge 
or eon sent of complainant a, and that they are etlll holding 
said notea and refiaae to return and deliver then to ooBq;>lain«nlMi 
after denu&nd upon them therefor; and that sinoe the filing of 
the original bill aaid bank hae brought suit in the f-'unioipal 
Seurt of Chieago upon f mr interest eoopona that were attached 
to the four principal notea it holds. ConQ>lainant« also allege 
their tftar th<>t said notes nay be negotiated and that other suits 
will be brought by the parties now holding thea or to «dio« they 
!nay be tr»nsf«rred, thus resulting in a smltiplieity of suits. 

In aooordmioe ^ith the prayer of »aid bill said truatees 
and aaid bank rvb enjoined frois negotiating or in any n^^ner 
parting with %\ys poseesaion of any of aaid notes in their 
peaBeaelon and from starting suits at lanr for reeovery thereon 
until the further ord«»r of the oourt. 

Appellants contend that the allej^ratione of the bill 
do not Bsake it a ease JuBtifyin«c the iaeuanoe int b ten^orary 
injunction against it or a case entitling ooa^lainants to 
equitable r«liaf as against Apptllaats. 

«e agree with appellant that the bill would not lio 
■•rely upon an averisent that the delivery of the notes l»y 
laiata to app<^llant to secure his pre-exieting indebtednoss, 
was without consideration, { ititmnin^g v. l^cClure. SC 111, 490.) 

But the bill eontains this allegation. 

*The s; id Bank of CommBrce anfl iJoTings wwro 
then and there ispaediately upon their obtaining 
poa»C8sion of the said four principal notes with 
interest coupons, thereto attsched| advised and 
informed through one of their officers and agents 

thft the a&id notes «md interest coupons were not 
Ihe property of said Joseph Baiata, that they were 
the property of your orators* eto. 

■sa^a mfi'i't hVi 

'9% t>i*» 



A prior •llftgation In the bill is la t)MM werini 

*7our orator e further ftllego and reprosoat 
thftt im^dlately upon receiving |ie«9«a»iMi of aaid 
four proiriasory notes, the an id Bank of CooRwroa 
bbA Savings ««re thareupon informed and ndviaad 
bjr tha Attorney for &i»idl B«tiata that a&id Joseph 
Baittta had no right ^ ete* 

It ia urged that it laay be inferred frma the laat quoted arer- 
■eat OxeA there v«s an appreciable li^ae of tiiai between the 
bank' a recc^iving s&id noteis and reeeiTing the infornntion froa 
•aid attorney, and thHt the bill in th^t respeet ahould be con- 
atrued most atron^'ly against tlie pleader. But a logieel eon* 
struetion of the other aTement is that the bank received in- 
fozaaticm of the saae character frm another souree at the rery 
tlBB it obtained poseeaaion of the notes. 

It is urged thft if ap'.«llaBt is net a bona fide 
kalder of the notes tlu»n appellees hane a cearplete rewdy at 
Isw by pleading a want of ooaelderatitm as provided by atatute • 
(Gk. 98, par: 9, Kurd's H. 3., {191?}.) The wiin relief aought 
liy the bill ia to aet aaide tire deed of truat as a cloud on 
tbe title to presiaee oemreyed thereby. The baeia of it is 
that the Bnteers had not parted with their title to the notes 
vhleh the deed aeourea and «hl<^ the bill seeks to oanoel. 
Attflh a proceeding being one cognisable only in a court of 
t<|ttity and defendants being proper pturtiea thereto there can 
Ve ao question of the court'a jurisdiction to detenciae the 
incidental legal question whether ajppellr.nt vas a bona f ide 
kelder of the negotiable instrunents, whidti liea at the rexy 
baaia of the equitable relief sou^t. Haring acquired Jurla- 
dietion for one purpose a court of equity ac<:;^lrea Jurisdiction 
for all purpeeea and will do full and ooiplete Justice between 
the parties and <Jetormine all their rights, ( Wehrheiw v. Jaith . 
*M 111. 846.) 


It Is further oont«nded that It i« net sufflei«nt to 
allege that ooraplrilnAntn fetfur the tranefer of eaid notes and 
the Institution of Airth«fr proceedings at lew thereon. The 
•etee )»eing negotiable and given >» collaterRl seairity, and 
the makers thereof having refueed te pay the matured ooapone, 
by reason of which euiie have already heea brought* a sale 
of Buoh notes to a&tiefy the debt for idiieh they were given 
as eollateral, and further suitia thereon, if not forecloeure 
yroeeedinfTO may reasonably be expected to follow. We think 
sueh circuastanees furnish sufficient ground for sueb a fear 
without further allegations, nnd that as such suits will 
involve the SQine «fuestien thet naet be adjudicated In this 
proceeding, namely, whether conpli^inants have parted with 
title to such not«^t$, the bill stateB suffidLeat grounds for 
tquiteble Jurisdiction and the ri^Jht to sudi order. 

1 • 23M9 



Pialntiff inirror. » 1 6 It Ae 635 

"^>^ / ) Error to 


JOSEPH P. XjIphT «nd lK|ia FA'^O 

\ Dtf eojtoat Ik ^rr«r« 

of uhio«g«. 

On Karch 30, 19X7, in th« Municipal Court of 
ChicKgo, plaintiff ecmn^nood & fourth elaso action in r«pl«Tin 
to roeovor tb« possoaoimi of a oortRin diawmd ring* Tho 
bailiff took the ring under th6 writ and daliverod it to 
plaintiff* A trial vae had Ixiforo viadge Harrjr 1^* Solan, one 
of tho Judgos of eaid court, end &% ito ooncluoion tho e«urt 
onterod a findin;^ that tho right to the poasoosioa of the 
property waa not tn tho plaintiff, tn July 7, 1917, judgiWBt 
on the finding »a» ontorod againat pludntiff and a writ of 
rotume h«bcn4o awarded. On July 21, 1»17, plaintiff pngred 
•a appeal frons tho JadgiRont order, i^loh wa« allowed, oon* 
ditionod on hie filing an appeal bond in tho sua of $2W0 
within 30 df^o, and h« w&ts given 60 days tif?« within whioh to 
file a till of ext»»ption8. Ho did not perfect hie appeal hy 
filiofj the bond within the tisno allowed, bat <m the olxtieth 
4«ar after July 31, 1917, to»wit, on aoptoniber 19, 1917, te 
pmeented a stenographic report of tho proceedinge had on 
tho trial to Judge 1011c M. eook« aaothor of the judgoe of 
■old oeurt» and eaid judge nerked th<° oeae ae followe: 
"freeented to no for signature in the abooaee of Judge Harry 
>• i>olun, thie 19th day of ueptenhor, A. . 1917. wello M. 
Cook, Judge." On ;i«pto»ber KB, 1917, Judge J5olan aignod tiio 
tteual oertif io»te vo aaid etenographie report " nunc pre tunc as 

• 3» 

of ^ptsrtMtr 19th P., i • 1917,'* and on iht following dajr, 
S«pt«Kl»er 39th» entered sn oreUtr of r«Q«ird th^t "the Bill 
•f Exceptions h«r«ln b« and It is h«x'«iby epprofvd «nd ordtr«d 
filed this d«it«, i^ttoc pro time a« of a«pt«jR'bor ninotoentb 
(19tb) A. D. 1917,* iind tlM ««» wiati fil<»d 9n asid duy. On 
October 1, 1917, plaintiff eued out this writ of orror 
and the tronacript of tlia r«oerd (from which th« abevo facta 
&pp«ftr) wftB filod with th« clerk f thie appellmta court. 

Afterw&rda In tMo court Sbert, ono of ttiCf J«f»nd«iita 
in erroi\ austde a motion thst oaid atenographic ri^port bn atrlckon 
froK -Qm transcript and that tha Judgnent bo afflmoda «hi«b 
fftotion was reiu«rTed to the h«4%ring< 

Untior tho rulings of tha nuproRo Court in Poopla ▼. 
Roaay^tif^d. 366 111, &4a, and of thia appellata court in Koacttl 
▼* Wolfaon . sre, 34&6S, t^iaion fllad October 10, lOl^?, «« foci 
oonatruinod to greiht tha motion to atriloa . 

In tho rioacniw&ld eai»«, tha trial judgf wa« MwtTf Claon 
of BMid ^vunicipal Court, and tha tlB» for praaontlni.: tha bill 
of exception oxpirad on Ootobar 11, 1914. It vaa praeantad to 
another Judge of th»t oeurt and ha laarkad it ^yiwsented thia 
10th day of Oct, 1914* - J^aeob n. Hi^klaa, Judge.* On October 
Slat, aald trial Judge signed tha uisual e>Artifieute * ntmc pro 
tunc aa of Octobsr 1^, 1914.'* In that caa« it ia e«ld (p.SftS): 
*lf a iiiuni;! pro tun^f ordf^r ia entered there aiuat be auf f icient 
in the record itavlf to ahow affir»4tiTely th»t the trial judge 
vaa authorised, tmder the law, to enter aueh order. Thia bill 
doea not ahow on its face, »ffiraBtiTaly, why Judge Ropkina 
■ode the entry that he did on the tr»ncoript of rec^ord or the 
authority by which Judge Olaon entered tha nunc pro tunc order.* 

In the preaent eaae the trumaoript doee not ahow on 
it* face, affirsiatively, the authority by ^ich Judge l»olan 


• 2- 

•ntcred tb« nrma pro t\m^ ©rd«r. It dMtt mppv&r thet Judge Cook 
B^rtoti the stcnogr&phio r«iport as presented to hii» **ln the 
•l^aence of Juds<t- Htvrry !"• DoXs>a.* It ie i^cided in the Hoeenwal^ 
ceee that, waMt the provltalone of e«^ction QX of the Prftotlee 
Aet. the aere abeenoe of the trial Judge does not author iase 
enothcr Jui^ to si^^ the bill of exceptions, ^nd thr^t. >:J^ saeh 
ether judge tmr^Xy maxlut the bill a» pree^nted, such entry 
would be sufficient to furnish ti biuBie for « ipjunc pro tu}>c order 
by the tried Judge in signing the bill, preyided it wee recited 
therein tb^^t such entry hp.d b««>n made by nnXd other judge while 
he wciB presiding in »aid court «.nd that *due diligeno» had been 
ehoen hy appellant in seeking to heye the bill presented to the 
trial Judge before it wskm preeented" to auoh other Judge. In 
the present cu&m there ie no audi recitftl in the |HU|£ pro, t u njo 
Order entered b/ Judge Polan, iMRd such feot does not otherwise 
sffimatively 6pp««r« 

Accordingly, the notion to strike the etenographie 
rtpert fron the trim^oript ie ollowed, and, a none of the 
sssigwMnt of errors i&re hftsed upon the oonson l»w reeord, 
the Judg^w^nt of the Uanioipal Court aust he ef firmed. 


57 • 2A9<iSt 


/ / 
/ / 


A. sum. \ /) 21 6 I. 'a. 63*5 

Ki3 CiilCASO. 


flitt d«f«i}<l«nt« aeystour H. Kffiua»nn« by this writ of 
error •«<>ktt to r«>T«r»« » ju«i^s«nt for |6S1 rendio'vd agninat hin, 
nfter verdict, in th« Wunieipal court of c»ilo«igo. In © fourtJa 
else* motion in tort. 

In pl».intiff»e »tnt»s!>«ttt of olRisi, filed April 29» 
1917, he Alleges in »ubntitne« t]h»t his olftia i« for d»B!R^«ii to 
hit sutossoblle truck »nd for leas of tne \i»«> of th» aaune through 
the negTigence of dc>f«ndartt und his ag«nt« on Novect^hfir 29, ldl6, 
St the interaeoticn of Ashland boul«Tftrd and Adfiffia street in 
Chicftgc; thet bl» tmok wa» t>«»xn^ driven in 9u\ easterly direotlon 
on w«st AdBKs street; that defend&nt owned ftnd eontroHed am au* 
tesohile which he Mte then m\A there by aimwelf . his ttervante «ind 
itoiiaoyees, driving in a nojftltsrly direction on Ashland boulevaxA; 
thet. irfsvi'iftsnt by iiiiaaelf, hla agents and employeee, so ne|[Xl» 
gyatly drove and operated s»ld eutomoblle tiiat without any fault 
of plaintiff it collided with plaintiff's truck, >*h©reby said trunk 
«as greatly daeaaged and :;^1alntlff tvas without the use thereof for 
three weeks* the defendant «nt«red his appearance by an attorney 
«B<J subsequently filed an affidavit of raerita in whloh he denied 
that the aooirlent eocurred through his n^ll{?«nce cr th«t of his 
•fent, denied Uiat plaintiff had suffered the dA«a«ee to hla 
truok as stated, and alleged that said eolllsioa ooourred viholly 
)»y reason of yX^lnXktt^m negligence. On May SiS, 191b, the court 

entered an order to the eff '^«t tiunt. by 8ti}:uIation, the case be 
consolidated with ths» oeu«e of Heuaaian ▼, iiealtii, no, 486, 48c, in 
said ii!unlclpal ocurt. On the day the cnee was called for trial, 
Monday, June 17, 1918, the eourt, by agrecstent of the partiea, 
vacated and aet aside o^lA order ef oonselldation. On Saturday, 
June 15th, an attorney, retained tliat flay by defendant, served 
notioe on plaintiff's attorneys tlmt on Sionday, June 17th, at the 
openinf^ of court, he would wnter his appearance «» «ttomey for 
defcndnnt, present the withdrawal of the appearance of defendant's 
former attorney, and Kiove fur a continuance of the case, on eai4 
t^onday nsorning, June 17th, said newly retained attorney was sub- 
stituted as defendant 'a attorney. He then sioved for a eontlnuanoe. 
supporting the action by his own and defendant's affidavits. After 
er^eiument the court denied the aiotion for a continuance. Thereupon 
d(!fendunt*a attorney moved for leave to file an amended affidavit ef 
merits by Z o'clock in the afternoon, which i»> tion was granted* 
ThereuyoB a iury was enapanel 1 *»d and during the laoming eoiae of 
plaintiff's witnesses testified. At 2 o'clock in the afternoon 
defendant's attorney presented defendant's e^ioided affidavit of 
•erits, in rrop«r foraj, in which defendant denied that plaintiff's 
truck had been dai&aged, or that he had suff {"red the loss of the uss 
thereof, "throiigh the negll$renoe and earelesenesa of th*? defendant 
er his agpnts;" denied tlmt defendant, his agents and ewployees, 
were driving an automobile in a northerly direction on Asraand 
boulevard as alleged; denied tiiat defendant was responsible for 
•ay damage to plaintiff's truck; and alleged as a further matter of 
defense tiriat "he loaned his autoiuobile to one iifilliajii Lidko in the 
latter part of ;iept«»ber, 191d, and that uaid s^illian Lidke, with- 
out defendant's knowledge, permieeion or oon&ent, loaned said au- 
tomobile to one oacar osberg, and that said osoar osberg was 
<lri7ing the said automobile, wituout the knowledge or convent of 

thla def erdact, at tUs tlicc of a«ld collioion, and that nsitiaer 
tfe« a»ld Willlftoi i.ldle or ' 3c»t Csberg w»a the ft^ent or €rspIoy«e 
of till a defendant before, nt th« tiaie or elnc« th» tlBjt? of Uit 
Roeident.** }J«lntiff»8 &ttcrn«y objeotwd to th« filing of tli« 
anendad affidavit of flterlta en the ground that it presented an 
antiraly new defense, wuich h»d not pr«fvlou«ly been diselcaed, 
•after the statute of lidtRticna h&u ruxi," After arguasent the 

oourt refueed to allow dafandant to file aald »mtnd9d affidavit 
af merits, aayln^; *You can't ec;Be in after the statute of 
llaltetions hea run and file an asztendad affidavit df /u^rlta aet* 
ting up a different defense. « Tlie only wltneae for the defanaa 
ym» the defendant hloxafir. He testified that he was not In the 
ecllltlon on l?ovesa1>ar 29, 19l«^, and did not then iiatra lila auterao- 
blle at the place of the accident. ATthotigh he waa aeked proper 
questions, he ^mu not allowed by the court tn jclve any teatixcony 
relative to the afflrmatlre defense .leentloned in said ajjsended af- 
fioHvil cf BBtNTlta, The Jury frun<'! the defendant guilty and 
aaoeeised plaintiff's damages »t the sum of ^681, and ^udf>;8>ent 
a^ialnst the defendant vaa entered en June £6, X91B. 

Def«Quant prayed an appeal to thla Appfillate court, 
which waa allowed upon his filing a bond in thirty daya, and ha 
was given tliae to file a bill of exoeptlona. ite filed hla appeal 
bond In the municipal court wituln the required txne and the saaia 
was approved; aubeequently he filed hie bill of exae} tlcns. He 
did not perfect hia appeal In thla Appellate court but on T'ovember 
21, 1918, he aued out thle writ of error. 

cn June 1«, 1919, plaintiff fll?fd a sictioH in thla 
Appellate oourt aufrgesting a dlmintitlon of the reoord and for 
leave te supply sase. Ke tendered a duly authenticated copy of a 
certain atateaent of olala, aworn to by ^eyaour F, Feumann, filwd 
In the tiunlclpal court in the cause Seuaann v, 3n<ith, Ho, 408,460, 

wiiioli caua* plaintirr cltti^isd wa» cociMcliaatdd vkth th« present 
ea*«* counter »u^gc%tiona w<ir« filed by def endartt. ini'»{».uoix 
at it appeared froib XIhq record in ihe ^rasent easfe tiiat »aid 
erdar of oonsclidation iiad bean vacated suad att attldl« durini; 
tLe trial of tixe present oase, and that said BtateEaent of olais 
was not pBoperljr a part ol the record of ths present cese, 
jlaintiff 's Action was en July '<3, 1919, deniwd. 

Acjcng the Tarious pointa urged by counsel for dS'» 
fenciant for » rev«rsal of the Judftnaent is the point titat the 
trial court abused its discretion In not allowing defendant, at 
the tine the case was called for trial, to file an aiseneie*} af- 
fidavit of merits. In which he presented a defense additional 
to that u2erition6d xu his orjLgxnttl affidavit, and in not allow- 
ing defenuaxtt to Intxodaoe testimony in sufiort cf that addi* 
tional defense. U«i ar« of the opinion that under the facts and 
circutuwtances uf this case the point is arell taken, I'he defense, 
if sustained by proof, is a good defense. ( AxJfcin t* i a^ e , 267 
III, 4iiCj Frits ' V. hoohspeier Go ., ^81 ill, 574,/ It anima that 
the trl^I oourt finally ral'uaed to allow the aaiended affidavit of 
aerits to be filed on the c^ound that the "statute of litti tat ions 
has run," But it had not. (dec, 15, LtmitwtionB Act,) 

And we do not think that th<$re is auy m«rit in the 
suggestion of counsel for plaintiff that this court is without 
Juriadictcn to review the caaa upon this writ of error. 

Ter the reasons indicat<-d the .iudfmsH'nt of the Funi» 
•ipal court is r^vnrsed and the cause reraanded. 

81 - 24956 

JOHU I, B«?BO, / ) 

J)«f«ndrint In I^for» ) 

▼•. \ / ) 

/ ) 09 COOK COUNTY, 

iliftintiff in/Error, j 

£161. i^- 636 


Tla« plaintiff in th« trial court wued to r«ooT«r 
aonty whioh h* olaiised wiia du« JeUa by Tlrtu« of a certain writt«n 
agrtoBifrnt relative to cortnin atook. At the conoluaien of the 
h«»rinF. th« court inttructcd th« Ju.ry to find th« Issuaft for the 
plrxintitf &n>J to aaa«89 hla (lit?.(«^«a at tli« •um «f $6,466,66. Th« 
Jury returned a verdict Rooordinfcly. and on July IS, 1S17, the 
court enti»red a Judji^<»nt for said aeeunt againet defendant, and 
defendant was |{iv«n tlxty day« tine vithln whioh to file a bill 
of exoeptiona, Thia tieae expired en ^eptaisber 11th, So order eaa 
entered on or prior to this date extending the tiote. Oa septeaber 
18th, one day after the expiration of eaid eixty daye, on motion 
of defendant, the court ordered th«t the tim« for filing the bill 
ef exoei tions be extended until iieptenber l&th. Befenaant pre- 
•ented tint bill of exoeptiona to the trial judge and it waa &mrked 
by hia "preeented,* on aepteaber 14th. The trial Judge aigned it 
en Oetob#r 20, 1917, and on the aaae day entered an order that it 
be aptroTed and signed " nunc pre tunc as of ^eptensber 14, 1917,* 
and filed by the clerk ao of that day. 

After the traneoript of the record wae filed in thle 
Mttrt oouneel for plaintiff filed a motion co atrike eaid bill of 
i9coevtio»e therefrca and tc affirm the Judi^ent. rhie Esotion »'aB 
deserted to the hearing. 

The Motion aauat be granted. The court «ae witi;out 


r-f f° 1*^ 

Jurisdiotion to enter th« ordsr ot @«pt4m1»«r l^» 1917, •xtendlng 
th« time to filtt th« bill of «xoeptiona until S9pt«BSibttr 15th. 
( niohter ▼. Chicago ^ Erim ]?. £o,, 273 111, fi25, 627; r«opl« v. 
Irwin , 263 111. 51* 54). And non«r of the errors aaaignod &nd 
sTfued sir 1 so on the ooaaison lam record. 

A«oordlngly» it le ordered toAt th« bill of •xe*p* 
tions be ttrlcken from th« transcript «u)d the Judgment of the 
Circuit court be Affirmed* 



364 - 24716 


\ I ) 

\ I Apj>«ll«««, 





JOHH C. TR^inC^* 


mmicx»^ coil HI 

0? OHICAaC, 


Mii. FR"5^3IDlff8 jrUSTIO^ r^OKSCS d<»liTer«kl the 
opinion of th*^ oourt. 

7hl« pre«««dii}fi wan In th«* n«,turf» tf a di8tr«8« 
for r4!nt« be.'nn "by ih« j^lnintifft* Merohant* Loan *. trust 
Ooaipany, tt al, lit %h.f> !^aBi9ip»l :3ouri ef f?!hiMiei9, to re* 
ecT«r thA Ruia of $463,00 all«||«a to be <iu« frcm th« d«» 
fondant John <S, trainor* for r«nt of an effi9« oocupisd 
by hln la a bttil4in|{ it^Ionging to th<t ontat* of I»aab«rt 
Tr««, for whioh tla«» plaint if fa wer** truateea, the oXalM 
ooTprod a period of IX snontiw at $42 y«r month, fiy ««y 
of aet»off tlie Ue fondant olaimed that he «%» ^^ntitXed to 
an allovaaoo of $80 for a period, at thi» bA^iimifig ef 
the tern 9j. hi a I«>A«e, during whi«h he did not Ignra the 
ttoe of ixis offi<»e owinfi to the progreoe of iklterationa 
end repair work* and mXv^ thet^t he wse entitled to aa 
allevanoe of Ifif^O for legal 8enrl«»^R rendered th« aetata. 
The eerYices irhi'Sh th« defendant alai£i<»d to )»▼• rendered 
were ia connection with tess sMttera «hioh wer« pendini; 
about the year 1913. These prooeedinfie vere begtin ia 
March. 1918. 


Th« ineuils v«r<7 8Mlm&tt«4 to the ooart witliOui « 
jury lUMl there ^rnif a fioding In fav^r of th« plaintiff to %hm 
•xtCBt of |$SS. The aeurt «llew«d the <t*f «n(i«nt*B »et*off 
M to th« iae itott «a4 4iKallo««d it m» to tho |600 itom. 

thtt only ({tteotion ];)r««ontt<l on thle a]^p«iil lay 
tho defftnajtnt inTolY^o thn action of th« murt ia disallows 
ing M« olain for $500 for tho alloiped legal serviooa. Wo 
haT<t oarofuXljr 9%maine4 the «>vid«nne in tho r«>eord or that 
<|uo»tio:i eut<i in our opinion it cannot b« »$aid that th^ finding 
of tho trial oourt vao aipainot th«> aanifoot weight of tho 

binding no error in the r<*aerd, the Jfudgaient of 
the i4uniaip«l Court is affirai^d* 


389 • 24742 



OITY 0? QWiOAGO, et al 

On appeal of JAMIU HIMLEt 

, Apx>«Xlafrta. 

16I.A. 636 


opinion of the ciourt. 

By this appeal the defendants Tinley and Bairetow 
•eek to rever^se a Judgment for $2,000 roooyered ^ tha 
plaintiff WolfXin, in a euit brought 1^ him againit the 
City of Ohioago and the Appellants. The euit wae for 
personal injuries which th<» plaintiff alleged he saffered 
as th« result of falling into an exoaration at the south- 
west oorm>r of Lavrenee and Uontioello aYenues, in the 
City of Chicago. The issues were sulnaitted to a Jury and 
they found thr« defendant City of GViioagO not guilty and the 
appellants guilty. The defendant Tinley had the general 
oontraot for the erection of a building at the looatiOn 
r«f erre.l to. He suh->let the exeavating and eem«;nt work 
contract to the defendant Bairstow and the latter isuh-let 
the exoiiTating to one Flood, 

In support of this appeal the only point ur^jed 




^7 th*^ appellants is that th^ trial eourt should hav« 
h«ld that undfiT th« eyldeno* the plaintiff wna guilty 
of contributory nftgligeno^" as a »atfc«r of law and that 
the court errod in refuBing to 'lirent a rerdiot for 
th«a en that ground and also that the verdict ia 
against th« raanifeet weight of the evid^noe on the 
quoatioa of the plaintiff* e oxoroise of duo Qar«. 

Th» plaintiff oufforod the injuries complained 
of 1»etwo<»n nix and oovan o*olo<dc en the evening of Beo* 
OBibor 10, 1915. The exoavation in question cane within a 
fow inches of tiio eidowallc en the Lawrence avenue elde 
which was the front of th(? lot and it was 25 or 27 feet 
in width. There was a epaoe of nine feet l>6tween the 
sidewalk on the Flonti cello avenue side and the east eide 
of the exoavtttion. The sidewalk along Lawrence avenue 
was ten to twelve feet in width. Th«^re wor<» "ordinary 
flaae" gas e<treet lampe on th'^" eoutheaet and northwest 
oorners f the intersection "but non* on the southwest 
osmer. The excavation in question hadveen ^sgun two 
or three uays previous to the accident* 

The plaintiff lived a few blooks awsy from the 
location of the excavatiAn but he testified that he had 
ast had ocoaaion to walk by corner after the exoava« 
ting work was begun and knew nothing about it until he 
suffered his fall on the eveninij of Deoeaber icth. He 
testified further that on that evening he was walking 
west on th«» south side of Lawrence avenus, "on the inside 
^of the sidewalk"; that after he passsd Montioello avenue, 
\X was wiping one of my eyes, having received a speck of 


dust In ny *y^*l tiKit After he bed paased th^ o&rximT 
tiurbline thirty or thirty- five fe«t he struek an ofe- 
struetion on the sidewalk witVt hie shoulder and l^ft 
leg; thiit he was walking at an ordinary gait; that 
he did not aee the obet ruction be for** lie etruak it; 
that he lost hie balance and in try .ng to r<iOOver his 
balanoe he fell b&ekwarda into the exaaTation which was 
so deep th'it wh^n eone men aarae to help hia "the top 
of th€ exaaTation iras hi^.;her than aome of their heada,* 
On orosK examination he testified that he had his hand- 
kerohlef out and that he continued to walk as he was 
wiping Mb eye; that "striking the obstruction jarred me 
and X stepped ba<dc fron it, end not knowing what I 
(struok, and in doing no I loist ay balance and went OTer 
into this exoaTation. " One Jong's testifying for the 
plaintiff said that the exoaTation was abo t eix feet 
d»*ep; that as he passed this pla^se oa hie ^^ay to work 
on the morning ©f thf tenth, there was a board abo tt 15 
feet long "on tho woet end of the excavation * * ♦ rest- 
ing on a briak layer* a tr«itle. From the end of that 
board to thf^ oemor there hab no barricade at all"; 
that the eaet "10 or IS feet, maybe 20 feet," of th<» 
exo^^Tatioa wa^ without a barricade; th^^t ao he passed 
by that evening about half past six o* clock he did 
not notice wliether there was any barricade there. One 
RiegAr, testifying for the plaintiff, aaid that the 
exoayation wae five or six feet deep; that he was oolled 
to the place of th^ accident after it happened; that the 
eastern part of the exearation was not barricaded; that 
^the barricade oonaioted of one plank about twelve feet 
\ilg and two or thres? horses; that the barricade ex- 



■!k t .'-, !■« "t ft ^ 

ii ixMi 

/I i 1 M -.•«;■■ 


t«ndecl froQ the west end of tlii* exoavation tov^rd 
E»ntie«llo »v«nttO, •»• far aa that on* board went"; 
that there wa« a horee at each end of th« board, aup >ort- 
ing it; that the corner waa dark. One Froaua, for the 
plaintiff, testified that he wae walking; along the north 
eid« of Lavrenoe aTenue when a ho/ told him a man had 
fallen into th«5 exoaTation aoross the street, whereupon 
he ran oTer there and juaped down into the hole from 
the Lawrenee arenue eidevalk; thatit wae a dark night; 
that th'^re wae a haxrieade in front of the wee tern part 
•f the exeavation eoneieting of a plank about 15 fe«t 
long, the east end of ^iotJu rested on a horee and the 
west end of which lay on the ground; that the horee 
waa about five feet long and stood at about the eenter 
•f thn exoaration and with its length extending east and 
west; that he found plaintiff lying in th' exeavation 
east of thet >wree; that he Juaped Into the excavation 
froa the i^wrenoe avenue sidewalk n9ar the east end of 
the exeavation and east of the horee referred to. One 
Guthrie, for th« plaintiff testified that he also Jumped 
down into the exeavation froa the iMwrtinrx avenue Bidewalk; 
that as he stood in the exoavatiea the top wasdiout on a 
level with the top of his head; that he Junpad into the 
exeavation ten or twelve feet from the oerner; that the 
plaintiff was lying in thff exeavation east of the middle; 
that there was no barrieade in front of the exoavation 
at the point where the witneee Jumped into it >7hi ch was 
ten or twelve feet west of the weet line of th« -onti- 
oello avenuft sidewalk. It wae oenoeded that th^re were 



MT: f.'lS'tr 




no lights about the exoaTation. On* Diokey testified 
for the plaintiff that h« atsinted in rwmoYing the plain- 
tiff from the exoayation, carrying him out on a board 
which he preoured from hie store nearby; thst he saw 
no boards lying about where the plaintiff was; that 
it vas dark and they had to get a lantern to see to 
get the plaintiff out; tltat the cxoaTation vae oyer six 
feet deep; that the plaintiff was lying a littl«> eaet 
of the middle of the exoavation. 

The defeadRnt Tinley testified that his office 
was on the north oide of Lawren'/^ arenue slmost opposite 
the exoavation in question i that the exoarating work 
was begwtt' on ths morning of the 9th and on the evening 
of the 10th the bottom of the exearatioa waa a little 
over three feet below the eid^walk; that he went oyer 
and flaw ikhat th? oituation wae about >^lf past fiye o*cle<dc 
on the eyening of the loth; that ther*? wae a barricade 
aeroes the Lawrence avenue front of the exoavation oonsist« 
ing of three horses; each abo>it five fset high* nnd two 
and a half feet in width* placed at the inside of the 
sidewalk* oas being loc;\ted about the oenter of the 
excavation* one a little tc the east and the other a 
little to the west of the east and west sides of the 
excavation* with planks placed between thcr horses aiid 
resting on the orosts pieces and also two other planks* 
one on the east side and ens on the west side v^ith 
their ineide ends resting on the outside cross pieces of the 
east and west horsec and their outside ends resting on the 
ground* these two planks inclining somewhat tc the south. 


The oontraater Vlood, t«etifyini; tor the defendo 
ant said that th(* sxeaTftting work b«gan "also it th« 9th"; 
that whtttt Xlafi m»a stopped -vrork on the erven Ing of the XOth» 
th« exoaTation vat hstwe«n tvo and a half and three f«et 
detfp at th'"- Lavronce avenue «nU; that thsre wie a barrioada 
l9£X th«r« when the men stopped work on tht •▼eniag of the 
loth. ';?hi6 witness oorrohorated th** defendant Tinley as 
to the natura and axtent of the harrieade saying that it 
extended two feet east of the east side of the exeaTatlen, 
Three workmen, amplcynef' of the oont motor Flood, testi* 
fled for the defendants tmd in substance oorroboratsd 
Tinley and Flood as to the depth of the f»xoavation when 
they stopped work on the e^enin^ of the 10th and the 
extent and mitur^f of the barrieade v^ioli they put up 
at tl^Mtt time, anci ox^e or niore or than testified that the 
same sort of a barrieade was placed along Lawrence avenue 
front of ths exearation on the evening of the 9th. 

On this evidence, our opinion is that the 
trial eourt did not err in refuting to hold that the 
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligenoe as a 
matter of law and further that the verdict is net 
against the manifest weight of th^ evidence on the 
queetloa of the exeroise of due care by the plaintiff. 
In contending the contrary, the appellant defendants 
have called our attejation tc a numbf?r of eases whi(^ 
are not in point as they have to do with situations 
in which plaintiffs were held not te have exercised 
duf; care inasiauoh at) they had deli^ierately put themselTOS 
into places of known danger or whi dh th^ should have 
known were dang'^rous and the danger of vrhiah they woald 


not ftt nil ih*» nituatlon imroXv^d h»r», thit mta • 

l»«rrie«(l« 97 ab^ui tii« ttxattT^iicia* W« ewanot ii«k^ thn% 
th« i»ttt'i.nUff WA« i^UAltiy of floatril?ut02y nflgliis«ii9« 
b«o>ui8« h» pvoQ»<'d9.4 %9 wtilk alonis th<^ itld^trnlk ftt bin 
ordiaary fiftlt 41s jai^ wi9«(l oa« of hie •jfe* with hi« 
Hanclk«rQh4«f« H« hn*^ no )c!v»«X>^£« of Aay ounrounding 
4aim9Y or tm^ 6b»truQtion( an^ hn«i xn. rl^tht to pr9eu;«« 
tiv^t thtm f^atXre ttiaimi^nXk ^^^ar rfftot^italtX^ tmt« for 
trttv^^l, Str»>y^ nn t, Cjt^ . 93 ill, A|»p. 20«l Villtigo 
&L '^itm%t^ vj^ iijnftoHio. lie iii» a»p. 356; ciy , q£ ott»^ 

i43 Ul, 398; i^iti^ of iifffa'datcwr; r, £ . X&C lii, 169| 

PA,ljf f ^ ^fl ¥*^^^t I& ^H£i3iCl£* ^73 Ul. 553; ^i^r •^ 
s^grJkian^ Vn.iloy t^ *ffl_Tin , IS3 ill. 232. If thip wore not 
truo ss m :^tt«^r nT lav, to Tmt &• th« »^i;>«ll4mt d«f«ad«nt» 
«ur« oeii<3«m«d« t^ qatvtion tvae ono of ftnot to 1»(^ d«t«t>» 
ala«4 V tlMB Jujfy «» to tto«B. ;3g^^ Xiu 2&22JL.a2jL» 267 Ul. 
363. V<t oftjiaot ooy fiN>«t ttaft «?vi(i#ao(» in this r«voor; that 
tli« vordiot i« Aot «u|»|»ert«(f la^ its prtfj^i^^rgMOf'- in thi& 
r«fi«r<, ajr«» , tma» v.. -J ftJ- of Chi-^>.>ao . XfO Ul. Al>p. 262. 

1?iil41iic no mrrov ia th« r'XK'rd, thft 3udsita»n% ol' 
tiw naporior lourt is offlr^od. 

412 • 2476S 




u / '^ 



opinion of U)« 'jQur%, 

This Itt an upp^i^l liiy the 4«f«n<dttnt from a Judiipmmt 
for ^1,375 reooTorod V tho plaintiff, iNUiod iQ»oa a vcrtjloi 
finillRS the iosuoii tn hie f»v«r, in ft suit for j»«r«onal 
ln4ttrioo« Tito d^^olxtr^tion oont«ln»(l twn oounto. 7ho 
first on* wao \hm ueusl ooanon lav ntrglii^onoo octmt. It 
ontdio no r«feron«?» to Tbo Worlmon^o ^«mi»on»otlon Aot, 7ho 
mooond oount oontoliK^d olniliur olIi^Atlono to thoso eoi»» 
taliift4 in th«» first ond it also inoXudiQd a para^rnph in 
whieii it woo oliogod tiriat at th# tlMO th« »4ainiiff ro« 
o^iYo4 hie injttsqr th« aef<»n4iuit h;44 *Sl«ato€t not to omno 
undor tbe Aot ooiesaenly known »o Th* 9orlMMMi*o Seaiponoo.* 
tion Aot* * * • ana th4 4of««Kiimt r»fuood to proTido and 
pajr oenqpenoatlon to ito osfiple/ooo, in aoooraaneo with 
tho proYi'lono," of t)i*» Aot, Tm 4of«n»ifi«t fll*?*! a plo« 
of tho g«R«>r}iI ioouo, 

Tho ooAt<>ntion of the d«f9na«nt that tho alJ«£»* 
tiono of the doolaratien aro not oufficlent to oup]^ort 
the verdiot and Judg!,^nt oannot jprovall. Tho allogatioa 

la %hi» f^vemmi aova^t t^t 4«tmtiitm% ta&d, Kt thf tlr^o of 
plAiatlff** All«8»<l injlary, "Al^et^d aoi t« eoiii« ujod^r 
the Aot QOflmenX^ lcn«trn »• Th« ^rlcH«n*s ?lOflg»<in»»tioa 
Aott ** weui a j^roper ulleig^Atiea. It wii« aet nets^saary for 
l»lAlatiff to mXitQ* 9Ti4«att»yjr faQt««<* tb^t defendisat 
iMd fll«d A aotie« of r«^j«sotton oftit«' Aot witn th« 
Zada«trt*l ':enBil»eion or t^t It Ittdi ooaiyliod urit'-^ tlui 
proYloiono oi' th«<^ Aot in r«i^i»jr4 to isiTlag not loo to mn» 
pXoyeeo ikorooaally or pootli^; notltrs la th(? proji^or 
plae^to. Xa th«- oeoon^i oouat of hl» <i»eI&ratioBt %h» 
9Xiii>latl?f did not i^load a Iffgal ooaoluolon but tm ultl* 
mto fa^t an4 und^y that oouat th« «vld«ntla27^ faoto 
g«lag to «ctabll»h the ultlmato faot alle^od v^rc pro$>»iiw 
Xy hold ad»l»olhlo !»/ th« tjrlalooart. JplfeOt Vju ^^outh-ern 
IXliBom 30^1 fe qokt go .. l»T IXl, Ap?, 247; tftAjshoo J^j, '$X4»r» 
iHt 9«?*^ "%^.'»g,:S»tt 197 111, App, 203. 

Za ouppcrt of thlo ai»3*»al th« d«f»*adAat aloo 
oonteado that thoifo aaa »et oufflolent oompotent ovldonoa 
to ftota'blioli %lin% 4<yff>ndiitnt bad fllod t»itloe of ro^ti^otloa 
of tho Aot with th« induo trial ^onmlKteioa ami had ptantti^ 
a o«9^ of »al4 aotioo oo ao to «iiita1»llsh a rajtotloa of 
%h» Aot ao th«rt?in iparoflded. la our o$ilnion th« ovldono^ 
aa to both of %}m&i> f^ota vas ouoh that «9 oannet dii»turb 
V»» finding of th« jttxy. 

Tho plain tiff ^ms injured A^ril 21 « 1915. yroi^ tho 
filoB of th« Illiaolo Induetriftl»ion an original 
maloatlon mn9 produeod and introdueod la ovldc'ao^. Ono 
9all«gliar ieotlf led that la 1913 ho «aa asolotAiit aanagftr 
of thw dttf«md«nt and thai the oe^nnaal cation la Quootlon 
aaa olgnad hy hl« aa^ aialled. Thlo ooiaiunl station wao 

addre9«9il tc **!tr. JOfivid Hos«, £»««7«ti»r]r In^uatriol Aooidiviit 
Be«ir4«t Spritiaf AelA, illlnol*** and. r«aut «« foIXovs: *thls 
i« to n4vi«f« jfou t)i«t ^««» ^ net d9»ir« to pn^ eoiapAnsatioa 
«• 9rovi4<»d for in th« iIllnoii» aoiipen»atlen Act of 1913, !•§• 
Bou*« Bill* $41 as pii«««4« FClndl^ ft<frie« vm a« to whketh«r 
ftur foiwftx* ol«!><}tl«>n ufl4«y th«)! lat« lit-w not to p«y oo»yp»n«»» 
tion sat) too hold Tulld utttlfr th<» pr^sntt; 1««, ZiniXj «o» 
jcriowled^o rooe-pt an4 eulTiot u@ »b to y ur Idomt of th« 
•amo.* Jufit oltOTO the oi£nntur« **S,J« a«ll»sli«v«'* iv»*r« 
tho wordo, 'Hoetem l^ftokiag & ProTieion C^.* On* a«ro3r» 
Soouritjr ouporrlsoy for tho lndu»trlAl OoawlBoion of llli* 
ttolSa Who |)rodu9«d t^lo eo^tstuiii'satlOR frost the fllr>« of 
the loattaisolon, t^^»tir&«d tJhnt ho flrot ooir it tlioro oono 
tim« in I}oo9iato«r« 1013« an<i that it had %«on kept th'^r^ 
«ir«rr oiooo. This oosottunioAtion oeaotitittod euffioioni 
notioo to tHo titdu8tri«l Oo»ai»oioa to tiUco df'fftnu^t 
ut of ttie* operation of th« ioriMMMi'ft Ck>mionoAtion A«t» 
<1^,W* ^^,1, Tb XQdM..>^trift^ -^^.»f^,io,n aS7 ill, 487J pro- 
Yldod taff otner i>roYioion© of tsoo, 2 of tia> Aot woro 
o^pli«it with* 

Ob tho quootion of tho pMstiaK A'' noilo«e to tlio 
off«>dt thAt d^f^ndaat hod al<»atod not to too toound y^ the 
proTieiono of tho Aot* ono SaOhovttllci « «m o^^ipio^ff^o of dofontf* 
wat ^ao ooleed if he* evor o«ir oigao poo tod up that d«>f«nd«ai 
v«o sot undnr tho aosponaatioii Aot timi ho F«id ho 1mIA« 
On orooo oxn»iaatioB he oaid th-^oo hnd to do ^ith dir^^otions 
Atoout th<* »»o» of tho differont a/<ohiB««« Thite witBoeo 
vm» Folioh mxd in th» aeuroo of thp> a3ro80«*omiiBilno.tion it 
toooaxao nooooenrjr tc uso an iat«rpr«tor. Ho t«»otifiod noor 
tho dlooo of a eourt ooooion on Friduigr. i)n th« following 
Monday this irittt«?ao ogaiB took the «t«ad aitd produeod * 

notice vhlah h« Mii4 h« Iift4 j»roeurf*d tvo» th* dofti* 9t th« 
llRokRoith Khop lit th« dof^ndsnt** plAtit on th« previous 
Satur4«gri ^^t> ^"^ ^<i 9«mi iJm mtm» kinds of noti<9<»« 
posted (tls««h<?rit through th<9 plant inoXudiag th« d«partu«nt 
whsrs plaint If r luid b««n es^iplojrtd "abeut « yp-ar b«ror® h« 
w&s hwrt, «.n-.i th*^ flr">r«» up all Uw t4s«,* B«i said hut 
did net think hr» hn.d 1»««m aak«d about t>)l»« sard on his prs* 
▼ ious sxaalnation. 7h« plaintiff t«$?tifi««i h« h^d ss«n thes* 
notla^s it.l>out tin* plant eino^ about t'«s y^iOiTtf bsfsrs bs 
vas }mrt* T,im nstiss psrodud^d b/ tits witn«x^« Suo^valki was 
haakd«d( **Hoti«s to lteplo7e«s*' an<l it netifi^d thsia that %im 
dRffmdtmt Ismd nle^t^ net to pmj soi^srtsation for iajuriss 
or d«atli sttff«^r«d ^ its astplo^rsss, aeoordlng to the pro* 
visions of th« Wo«^k3a«n*s Conp^^sation Ajsit. Th« vitn^^ss 
oallagh^r tei«tifi«rd that r!otio<*8 that ths dftf<»ad«at would 
not bo bound bjr t^ @oitp«ns«tlon Aot Jfiad h^tm poetod but 
too could not s«ty tvb«thor It was b^^fors tho aooidont; that 
thoy v«ro put up after an lisT«»»tl£ator naaod 0*Brion mbio 
out to th*» ^laat tmd oaUsd th^^ir att*atioa to th<r fa«t 
tH«t tW'Sr-? vn^Tf no notioos postod,** it istrh «t th"« tlao 
of sotto a'sol^^at but ho di3 not know viiothor it was this 
aooidoati that ono I^irohor vas preswRt at tHis <ieny«>rs»» 
tien tho vitaoss had vitirt &*Bri«(n} timt ho thou^^ht tho 
aotio«s «oro posted "along in April. I9lft*; tlmt h« di<i 
iMt r«^«iMb«r an;r aooid^ni in that month or about that tiiso 
othor than tho nns lavolT^d hi»ro. 

Kirohor tootifiod for <ltnfemsmt that ho had noror 
oooB any notioo aiaiilay to tho ono Euohowaiki had produood; 
that •h<t had typowrltton notlowE? postod * * ♦ statlag that 
«o had iwaivod tho C^aponoatlon Aot but they wore pestod 

after i:or(l«I««»kl jmu imrt * * * about ^iA^ or June* 1915, 
* « • an inTostitfator «•»• out aft«r th* ao«14ent ana oall^d 
flQT attinitian to th« faei tJtot t^ netiQ«?ift wfr(» nat po»i»d.* 
Thkz wi«;a««8 WK» tii® t>u:p'^ifint«n4«rnt for th« d»f«n<4«nt, 

(tal# ImtS^^r tetttif 1«4 that hf» ««• ti»i«k«<8p«r for 
d«f«n«laat in A£>ril X9XS tout «»« not in a«f«n<l«int*0 «a^pXoy 
at th«- tine af this tri^l; that th^r^? were ne netiocpc about 
th« :eaq^«nBation Aot |^ttt<(i4 In thn pXaat h«t9r9 plaintiff 
van Vaurt tmt attmr %hm% tlma *X Tmimibnw a«alns *A<i r«a4* 
ins Plaint if f*e Exhibit I (thft <}ar4 pvoduoftd by .'^uchoimlki) 
aa6 th .*<? «mt9 oth(*r notlor^:* lilc* that* I 4on*t r«afta%«r 
«a«lng Miy typmirlttftn oo^laii. * 

e*Bri«n t«etlfl«il tint h« #r<a a laiqr«r and want 
to a«fa»d«nt*« plant t maica an laTestlftatlon of thin 
AQciiicnt in Jtma, 191S; that i»« obo«rT«<l th«ri> wore im 
notloeo about th« j^lant regarding th« a«Bj^«n»atien Aet; tbat 
He oalldd thft <l »f en^lant* ft att«ntien to thin «»d gave Xhf>m 
a notiotf siatlar te »»laiatlff*« ^'^xhlblt 1. B« furth«r 
t««tifl*4, "Wltan 2 «M at th# w#Btem Packing ft ProYisioa 
Oaayangr plant 1 taw aona t/pawritten notle«« r«gar4inc the 
anahla<'e and thft opipratlon of th« eiaohin*^, • 

Tba plaintiff «ao permlttod to t ratify and vin think 
not la^reporly, tJwit aft«r Ho r»«oTor«<i from hio injury 
he wont oT«r to won hi» «u9«rlnt»n<i«nt at (lef«rn^«nt*» i»laat 
ana he »;sl4, *«• 4ort*t long under tbo Cloapensatien Aet, 
we are h*?re th** some aa we were befor*?,* 

It ie not nurprioing that the jury ooneludad froa 
all thle t««tiMony, not only that the defemiaat ted notified 
th» CJojoaieoion thtjt they had oleeted not to be bound by the 

Aot, but alne ihat'th^y h»4 post«d »»ti««i!i %» thftt •ffftot 
btforj^- tiM? plaintiff •»*«} injttr«(4, 

*« flad no errer ia ib« r«o©rd anii tlte Jud,gm<*nt 

844 - 846t8 


SflMfAinft « <iion)o ration. 


Z161A. 636 

mt. J^SYia^' ©•SCS^CH «<»liTer«d tH« opiiaoii 

9t %hi^ OOUTt. 

Kary A. U»nvX»» \>Te\i^ht mkit in th«! Mun^atpal 
Oourt •# CI%i<mi$o A^ainttt t^ Western life SndiMatltjr 
(SM^say %o r^9W0r #1313*40* T%i<^'e »a« n finding inftd 
4>i40a«at in h«r fftvor f«r the «aAuni of ii«y «a«i-« t« 

r<rvtrai« witi*^ <a*f«n4iuat i^rostoutos ihi« api»«al. 

Tkfi>r<» is n» dispute «» to th^-" fuctts in thi« 
«IM «hi«h» «• fur «fl amtwrial, mro es followftt Mo/ 5« 
191C, the rjtif.Mts of \^n&Tt a fr&turnAl in»ur«n(M •o«i«ty, 
i»8U«4 itti b«it«fit 992:tif io«it* te -^mliM S««rIeB, huftlband 
ftf tli« plaintiff. Afterwards* , ii«pt«ffiiil»«r 22, 1919 » th« 
Continmttol B«n«fioial AeacoiatiQiit a P^nnnylTania oor- 
^ration, aim- a fratarmil inRU3rano« aoaiaty* took aver 
tiM a<»rtifiaata laaueu V th>e fjoulchta af f^aar and aaaiouNl 
Xh* liabllitiaa therAundav^i^ an4 aftarvards is»u«^ it« 
•vn a«rtifi9at« la liau thffraof. Tha 30Rtin«nti%l B«na» 
fiaial AsiooiAtton wa» Ito^-mtad to 4» iHialnaaa in thla 
3tata in 19X2 «nd th^^raaftor oendu9tad itt Vuetn«*«ff h»m 
vmiiX loYtM^iar 1?, 1914, Khan tha 8up«iiriat«nMnt of 




In»uriuia« of thin i'>tiit9 filed a ^ill In the Superior 
<;9urt «f Cook 3ouBty far th« »p!>ointat«ni of » Boe<!iT«r 
of tho looal A»»ota of the Aosoolfttion and for w writ 
of Injunotloa to r«otri%ln it from T*merin& Its A0i9«!t» 
from this Etato. Tho writ wao »v«rdo^ and the CMoagO 
Titlo & fruet '^. ftpjr^Jintea r«o«»iTer. On T?ov«wb«r 38, 
\9ltk, ft bill was filod ia P^nnoylVRnla to win^ up th» 
affairs of tli« B«n(»fi9ial A^;t^OQiatio*-l mtta for the ap* 
pointavnt of a reo<?iYer« and l!MiTid JPhilllpo wac th«ro 
ap<}ointed r*^oivor« H« aft«rwi!%rd« fil«d a bill ia ttko 
Oireuit <3ourt of Cock Ciounty praying for an anoillary 
r«®«lY«r, TMr proo««ding in** onjoin^d by an ordar 
Knt'T'rod in th«» Hiuit ia th« Superior Oourt* Ait app<»»l, 
watt taken to thin oourt vh^'re the ordor of this Supor* 
ior Oourt wa» affircataj i*«oplo y^^ qo?itinenta ,l Ben«fioi«,^l, 
Aoaooiatloa ^ 2C4 111. App. 501, After th«» oaoe wao 
heard on ite merit* anti a fiaal deorffe «mtered, another 
a^j^eal aao taken to tnie oovirt where Xhm decree wao 
affiraed, y<»t>^l^ y»^ , aoati«^nt<R l|, Bea*»fioial j^gg'a. 212 
111. App. 424, A writ of error was afterwards oued out 
of tha UuprciMe Court to r#Y«r«e the Jud^neat of this 
eourt, but U;>ori htMArinfi th«? Jud^»«»Bt of this aourt wao 
affirsaeci, I'eooli^ y« ^.ontinantal Aoa'a . 239 ill. 4C. 

Oa HoYembRr 29, 1916, BaYld Phillips as 
HeoeiYor af the Asaooietidn enti»re«l into a reinsuranoe 
ooatraot with the d«feiidRnt eoxQian/. Oa iifeYeatber S6« 
1916, Peliz Se«rle» who liYOd ia Hew rozie Btate, mailed 
his oh«tek to the Oontinemtja Ben <?fie4al Aesoeiatioa at 
3M«mco for €23*50 in pa;^n<»nt of hie Dooenber dues or 


yiNHrttai. Vh«n th*i ohMek r^nchcNl Chiang it woe turatd 
prer 1»jr tli)«> postal authorities to th« Title & Tru»t 
Oaavaflty aa B«$«iv«r. £/hortly th^r«mft«r during %h/u 
f9r0> ^ari of i>oo*nb»r « y«»pr«»i*nt«tlTe of tii« df^f^ndtaat 
oospan/ «alli9d An th« Titlo A Tru'^t Cc^pangr and la* 
formotf It of thH relaturaneir oontraot vhi^ih th« d«)f«»iiA« 
AHt had «nt«r«d into with %h9 Penna/lTAnia p«oeiv«r, 
MsU iMde an ^mAaaTor to aaoora fron th* Title & Trust 
CompsLniy th« jr»natt«>»i for duea or 9r««iuBUi that had 
baan M«4e by a nunbAr of i»olio^ holdera in tha Oentl* 
nantal B«n«flQial Aaaa^iatioa, The Tltl<$ A Truat Clo»» 
jMnny rftfuaed to turn er«r tha stonajra r«o<*iv«»d without 
an prd&Tt of «>urt. Aftc^rwarda an erdt*r of oourt imu 
aatarad AutitorlMiiis th«$ fitla & Tru«t Oawj^wsf to in» 
fjttira of tha poreooa who >wt(i eant tht!!ir pranlumo to 
th<» Banef i cickl* AaeooiatioAiftm) vhiohwere hold by tha 
Titla ft Truat Cou^anyt whether the^ viahad to hava 
th«m rAtumad or to have thwn turnad orar to tha 
daf^ncant ooapany undr^r tha raineuranoa aantraat. 
Tha Tltl<» A */ruet Con^angr in aaoerdAao« with thia ordar 
"mrota tha aavaral paraana who had aant the praniuma 
and anc^^oaed two fonai oX ji^oatnl oard with tha lattar, 
oaa dir(»9tiag \hm Tltla k. Truat Coi^i^mny tc return tha 
yraailvDa te tha polieQf holdar and tha othar diraatlag 
it to turn tha premiuaa orar to tho dafaadant oonpaay* 
Tha r«>ei9iants of tha lattar and poatal oarda wara 
ractuaetad to aiips tha onrda which axpraaaad thair da* 
aira and mail it back to th«^ Titla « Truat Oonpaay. 
Two dayis aftarwarda* on Daocnabar 8C« 1016, th«^ d«>fend* 
ant oorapnqy vrota to theaa poli<ty Jtioldara, iaoluding 
7olix, Saarlaa, calling th«»ir attanti*a to t>i« lattar 


••at Igr th» Title \ Trust aoaqpazgr* •iigg««tiiis that if 

th«y W4tnt«(i to t«k« «ulT«R%«g« of tbr rolnauraaott 

Qont.aot «mt*r«d into for th«»lr 'b«n«fit, to elgn tho 

|irop'>r pootfli «ir4 and r«tujm it to th*< title ik Tru«t 

Ottiq^any, Aes^rdlngXy R«Arl«t •ign^Q and rtf>turn«d to 

tha ?iiX« A Trtt»t ToMpaggr th« (ittr4 dir otint; th«]3 to 

turn ov«r tho I>ots«mli«r proniua to tlM» a^fon^ant, (md 

ia th« mmm.» iott(*r bo onaloooii « oh«al£ for $23»30, 

payable to tl4«^> ordor of ih^'r d(^f>9ndAnt o0a9tt«Qr, and 

r«que«t'9d th« titio h tfruot CoBi^aQy to turn it evt^r 

to the d««fenaant ^rapaqgr in paynent of hi a Jmiuaxy 

dttoo. the Titltt A Truftt So8q»«n/ r«?fus<9£i to turn OTc*r 

tli9 dse-jtk for t^a January di^i<«s «» r«<itt«tt«d, but ro* 

turned the sane to So<trl<«». Th<'rttu{>«n r^oiarl«e» on 

the Slot of £Mii0*fxa\»9r t rema.ileU the* oheek to the 4^* 

fendant coKtpany adYi using thwa that th<» ohec^: h»d hewn oeat 

to tho Titlo A Truet "Hoespaiggr »nd had 1b<»«m rcrtiurned V thtt 

latter* and that it wao in pnyaiont of thr^ .Tanuary du«A. 

The OhOQdc aad lett««'r were r'^^s^iYOd lny def»na».nt on Jttni.2'17.0n Jat 

4, 1917 • an order was entered 1^ the oourt di rooting the 

Yitlo it TrutPt Cosipaiiy to return the oheift;* to the ••Toral 

IMliqy !iolder« vdio hmd ro^eeted oudh r<!>tum* sme to turn 

over to defendant eu<^ proMiua* a« th<^ j^llo,^ holder* 

had roquesitod. In «i>njilian^« with thiic ordor« the Titlo 

* Truet Qomf^any on Jnnunjry 12, 1917, turned oyer a nini1»er 

•f pmUuaui, including the tioarleo ehook for the i^eoeuber 

9r«niua« to the defent;i«mt ooapany, Afterw»rdo on irBnuary 

ao« dof@nd>ait returned thr* two ohook* to ^^«eJrle• otating 

that it did not reoogniMi tins Title & Truet Qmt^way ae 

its agent in nny m^aaity and that nlnoe the jDeaoMbor 



pr««i<m wa« net r^-c^ived durlsus th»» wonth «f J^w»alMBT ii 
wac too lAt* and, t)»(«refor«, Ceturles ^umald not be as» 
e«pl«(i «• a pol4'3y holder und«r th« r©ln»ur»nc« oon* 
traet. Cti y«»bruAry 3r4 foXXowins fi«»rX«a Ulod, $».n4 
ihio ouXt w«a ¥reu^ht l|y hi* vXdow thti h^n-^tiaiary. 

Of ootiroo, pXftintlff** ri4i;hi tt> t'^vormr aris*» 
•ttt of %h» rninfiMxtin'Uft oontm<:t taitm in oonneotloii witta 
th« umdicputod fa^to a« to what wae done In lh<» eaa«« 
JDofendaat oontondB that under tlw t«raa; of tii9 relnsurano« 
oont/^aot &e^FX*!9 ooul4 not talc« adTantae<> 9f it unXoae ho 
lia4 i^aiU at Xoaat oao preaivm to th« d<«f<*nd!mt eompany 
within th^ tim« liaiied by hie poXiagr or onrtifioat* ia 
tlio B«si«flolaX AOiJiooiatloii; that EearXos had th« entire 
Month of Deomabor to pay th« i>«af«ctb«r dues Vut ■ine# tho 
du<?« ««r« not /^^^'S'^irod by the defendant until ttoa«ti»u» 
in January the paywent *a« too l«t#. The contraot of 
reineuran($e provided that poli^ heXdera to take ad« 
T&ntase of it au»t pay one premium to Xhf> defendant ooai* 
yaay. Shcn un Heveja%»er S9, 1910, deft^ndant entered into 
the reiu»uranoe onntraot, BearXee, h»d aXr^^dy, four days 
Vefore, paid hie preniim for &eoeaber. It oaae into the 
hande of th«! Title 4 Truet Oonpany and ahortXy aftejnaards 
thi* h(»aaae known to dRfenattnt, The defRndent thereupon 
end«*avored to obtain thia preniuK. It hod pro<jured a 
Xiat of the poXi ay irioldera fron the ?itle ft Truet COKipany, 
and alee a Xiat of thoee vho hnti paid th«ir current prtim 
niuna. It wrote Slearlee euggeating that if he dneired 
to take adfanta^^e of the reineurano<« contraet to authorise 
the title A Truot Oomp&ny to turn over hia 2}eeeaher premiuau 


Thie Searl^e did and the fact that it required sorae 

few days after the first of January for the Title & 

Trust Company to get the neceseary order of court 

ought not defeat the plaintiff's claim in view of the 

further fact that the defendant accepted from the 

Title & Trust Company thia premium after the order 

of court was entered in January. Defendant had also 

received n January 3» 1917, payment from Searles 

of the Janviary duee andit never indicated it would not 

accept him as a policy holder until eighteen days 

later. W« think without going/into an analysis of 

the reinsurance contract, that we have said sufficient 

to warrant an affirmance of the judgment. 

The Judgment of the Municipal Court of 
Chicago is affirmed. 

lTl^\l.J^ it£i ,ii&% 

•ti- i: 

2ft2 • 24e^C3 

lom J. BOHIOS, do ins businei 
un<lttr th' mmt and «tyX«! o^ 



HA»3iY u MMmmam, »t «! 

On «pij><t «i of o?maAMi3 a. 

SCM2LTX* 9«riieniil.I/ ani 
lid trust^A* 

,.-•'7 %..., 








216I.A. 637 


sxmmum ocurt, 
acoc aanrrsf. 

UK. JUtlTZC'^ 0*CC»HOa d«llT«red th« opinion of 
t||9 ooiurt. 

CoBiplttiniint filed n bill is^«iEUit 4«f«nUants to 
forooloao a iacohf%nie*(i lien for #7&0,&C. Afior the leouoo 
vtrtt ttftdo up, th« oauao v«» r«»f erred to « i£«kot«r ivito r«* 
ported in f»vor of ooaipXAinAnt, and ft deoreo entered in 
Aoeordanoe with t^ HAeter*e r^tport. to r«^veree vhiah thlo 
appeal le proeecuted. 

Thd record diealooea that th9 defendant Hagersaan 
vae a\>oat to cxonstruot an apartment building and for that 
pttrpoae puroliaeed W7,»tC briolc of the OMsplainant, The 
briok v^re ddivt* red and pay^aente ««r«! made froa tlno to 
tiae until* ne ■9um;;lainAnt oontends, th«r«« waa a balance 
due his of 1759. &0. Cn the otteer ^land defendants olalw 
the b«l»n<j« due vae but $270,79. £o far a* th« facte are 
oonoerned, the only diejpiute wee ae t© whether th-^" wne to 


'b« ft diiXK; <nt of •«¥«« p«r o<^nt ullow^ii >n the pvLT^tmn* 
prioe of th* brink, Ifh* JAaet<»r tsmiitRin^^d oswiplRliwrnt'ii 
oontsntlon that t>i*r(^ was to b« no disoouni »xi<i hln find* 
iag was ttp:v>it>T«4 fey the (JhanowHer, W« have r'^ad the 
ftvlciens*'' in th« r«*tjor<a and tliink It olfar the finding l« 
in harmony tJior^wltft, Aft«r n#»rXy all of th«? » video «'' 
b«fer<» tho Biaat'^r bnd h^^n Intro duo«d it d««Y«Iap«d thdt 
oomjtlalrtimt waft in bri»ine«s with hie brothers who w«r» 
• iXent partner* • and thf^reupon deftmdanta askod leave to 
amend th<!?ir tm»9*itn so ae to set up thAt th'^ oontrnot for 
the purslRaee of the brlalc had been entered into with the 
partnership and not with ooHplainant. YUis ootioa was 
denied* and we think very pr0t>mrX^ so, for it ol early 
appears th»t at the ti»e the motion was aoade it was 
apparent to ever/one that de-fend ants would not b« 
sueo*B> ful in th-Pir defense to the '^nse, ancJ they th«n 
sought OBwery t^^ohnieal ground to avoid the paynent sf 
a Just olaim. In the Rnr»i"?rs filed and on whlcth the suss 
was on hearinfit th«^ expressly adMUtted thtut the oontraet 
is purehaee briek was auids with Qonplalnnnt. In theee 
oireomstnnoes, rteff»ndisnts should not be p«frciitted to »© 
amend their answer as to oontradiot whnt the^*- had thorets- 
fore adnitteii« espevsially when the; anendm^nt sought to be 
■adff would not in an/ way effeot the iserlt© of th»;f ocrv- 
trovers/, viij that there was a balanoe due on th» pur- 
etese prio« uf the brl<^ of $759. 50. the motion v^ s a 
■attsr to be 4«teriaine4 in the exereiae of Xh^ so and dis- 
oretion of the oourt. ^rew y^, Brew . 271 Hi, 239. #• 
think the ChanoollorH ruling was asiinently proper. 

• 3« 

Another i^oini ««Hia« tc b« timt Hfi^erzaAn vst« 
Mi tti9 ovn«r of ti)« property ( but that the U«ft>misint 
S«huili9 tms, ^n4 th<> atiit«a«nt of olAian for li«n fll«<l, 
«li«r«ia it imm 9tat«4 that if«s^r»tin wae th*^ ewamr, wam 
00% propffr and, th«jr«fur«, ae Xi«ii oeuI4 b« «^Kt»bli8lie(i» 
It is ehargcd in th« biXl (utd the «i9l4en<}» s^te^s tlMkt 
Bft4S«xn«a wut %iw owtT of r^oord ml thfi time of th« aaklnn 
•f tto« ^ntrAQt, «ii4 this ««• ^xprttmAy «4Ritt#d b;^ th« 
ftRKwftr* fllwd, Tbior« i« no ••nbiAnoe of ia«rit in this 
P9int, UtiiipiaJlnAnt wa« 9le«rly an original «ontraetor vithia 
th« !a««niag of S«e* 1 of tho i^*3h«inio*a Li«n I«t« and fil<i<l 
his alaia In all r^spaota In aoeordanoff with thr? atatuta. 
Ma nariiarioua point ie .sa4a whloh should in an> «i*;^ defaat 
tha olaim. The <l««irtt«? of tMa 5up9rior Court of look County 
ia 9%tVQ\ and it ia affintad, 



i)«f«n4ttnt in Kyrer, 

I 216 i. 

ik« 63 

6U^8HiCi< 3C5UHT, 

IBiAaD 3. SiiYe^t K«o«iv# of 

th« Wabash SiAiliroaU (3c« i « <»orp« , 

\l»;;*lntif|' la Rrro 



tlM oourt. • 

f«r dia^^dkgne • Jr«ir imv p«r«»iinl injury atntl rffoev*r*4 

first count Qontninv mn iai«iiAtit>a ef gonvral ne^^Iigftnoo 
on ih« pttrt uf th<^ aAfnndant in nannHgins thcf r-n^in* (ia4 
train pt sar»; the »«oond« tixiett. th^rt? wa0 no li^ht bura« 
ia$ at 0^9 r<>Mr and uf t!w» trftin vf 9arm; no b«3.1 ringing 
And n<» Murni*i|E or notioe ffivtfii of tha a . proaotting tr&in; 
tlt<» thi)N, ihK«.% tiis «ngitt« e«i(l irfltia of oam iMtM op«r*t« 
«d vithoat A w«ito)isan to gir« th« plaintiff uii^ vn^nias 
•f its aj[}prG«49)i ttn4 wit'iout rni^ &ekt9» m,% th« wroatiag. 

?)»• 4ifta«t«r taktt|>p<»n«(l »t * polat wl»r«!^ the 
Wabftah tr««ks» two in n\mh«tT nmi nmnltig p^rskll^X, arcsm 
• ^ubJLla Atrtwc't known «• fvouth 'Iifintii »tr««t In xhn oiv 
of lii^A^etto* Intiion*. soutn i^finth »trft<*t run» m»rth 
«a<i ooutkka AtKi tU« two tr«dlc« of the Wo^Mioh wroev that 
otr^'^t jTunning in a north<t«»t9rljr «*n<i «oatJBra»t«xiy <ii- 

r^otion. Sout-n Ninth «tr«*t a« It f©** i»euth to th« rull« 
tfi9&»»lT«« ars loT«l. Ju9 1«Y«1 ar«a is fr%« 13 to 30 

Th** tJP«ia of th© ^aljiith whioh ooXil<S««;l T»ith the 
«utomG%ll« in whioh t\i«i plaxlntiff tme rltflng oi>7i8!i«st«<i &f 
»n cngiae ahvI ti&ii« fr«i|?;ht oars ^mi 'waft «ii^«g«»«l in a virltah* 
Ine <»p<?sr«tl.on. At tlac tlm» in question it w«u» goitig in a 
northi»««t«rljr air«otion« It <^mi»lst#a of 8«v<*a box <3«Lr«» 
two loaUftd ^>nl eara, misiii %h« mnginn, whioU '<n&» s^it^nohftd 
t« tht<> «outi£»r«6%«m And e»f Xhn tr4ifi« tho taro l.o&4«ti qoaI 
4Muro ««r« at V!?i»i ?idrt>i»6st«ra «Rd of th^^ tr^in nti-A Is^twftoa 
tJi«»i and the tmaXf^r of th« ffinj^lcfl w-'re th« eeven twx caro, 

7h« ormv hj»mUia|^ th« fr«iiglit train wao »aa« up 
of Boll, tJ»« »n^in0«y; JioKai^, th<^ fimwita; larioooll, tho 
oonduotor; Kooson and Klino, owitohmoa, 7Ji« onginoer w^s , 
at thfr. tiaff, ofl tiia oorthoriy oitie of th® entgine «nd tlio 
firoratJ^m oy^ftlto bin; Kop; eu, oa« of the ovitohnon, >sr«8 
on A bo;c ear noxt ts tlu» «ngi»o; DritscoolX, th<» ooaduetor. 
vaa on th.o box aa.r which «»« th-'- seventh oar fr<m the «n- 
IKiao* an4 ltlia«»« a owitotean* wan on th« northoast oorner 
of th» ninth o»r, a Xoa4«d ooaX oar» 

Tteo train va!» baing bfiKsacad in a nortliaaotorl^ 
diroQtion on thft meiithvvXy traoSe. DrlBOoil a»d Urn t«o 
•wtt«hR»«»n, i:»«sj<n» fmd :iin«, «»oiv Jmd a wh4t« lantarn* 

Th« «oiii«iort o-smrif^d on July 317» 1(>16 beiwo^n »;50 and 
lOjCC o»oXoak at ni/^Jit, Ae the froight tr*in, goin^ 
northflaotorly, aj>proaoh<»<i South Sinth otr#«t, K:lino» tii« 
owitohaan* iw5»o wao ot% the northonot oorner of th« Ioa(ie4 
ooal oar • aooordism to hia own teetiison;^ • wh4:»tlft4 by 


si»»ns of puttinis motm of Hia fUm*frvt In his saeutli MMl 
blowing, ami^ alee, «»4y(»4 hJi« l&niem as ft sig^nAl. 
Th« frc^lgiat tf«i» «»• ^In^ Also-Jit fiv«» sj41<s& twi hour. 
About ItfeC f«et j«jr4h«Affii sf th*; traok i» roiitb sitjr©«t, 
whioh runs mia% iina wos^t iu(t(i£ o]ro»««« i)«uth f^inth ctr«<>t 
fti rl&nt (U]|sl<»«. At th« iRtf^rv notion of thoi»« two iittr«(»t» 
th^^re wfto cm «I(»3t]rl4 aro Inrnps jriind Altout 30C ft«t noath 
•f th« rKilrui»4 tniok»« in th« middle of Lcuth Klath 
•irotct th«r« «ae anoiher uiouiXar Xmofi, Th<^- furnleiM»d 
^rAOtiCKiIl/ i\Xl %h» liighZ %h0rn w»b 1q tii«it n«i4hl>orfaoo(t 
*t tiis iifse In uudistion. ?>»9 noxt otret^t itorth of i:^outh 
etr«<8t« j^HralI'«l %h<^r(*with» it '^oluobici 8tr««»t, thAt aXm 
©«»»««© tjouth ^xnXh Btrotftt »,% riight AOfloo. The a^xt 
8tr«et north of^ ::oIujabitt ie tain 8tx««t. Oji t>»<? nlijht in 
^ttoatii^n, out ^th«l &M.'JibA.vuih waa djriTi»£ « two Bft«i«cl 
$ttt4«bak«r pA«»«ti««r »ut«>siol»il«. It hRd « loft htmd Oxi^v^, 
Thortt .j<'r<9, iato««t>a»r, fl^<? ti»|)««« in th* Autoaobiio. yjtw 
plaintiff waa »«*tt«4 r^t thu rijiht of t>i<^ driver on the 
fr«>«t ii*>at aai, ih«r<»for'% ©a th« «i4c 'owardo wJUoH th« 
froiiiht tr«ln • runninis baofescerdo • was «oviag;, BoXle 
Woo4t (iyaoo Wcod ^md itrc^. ;ih«j»lmuigli, xlm «aother of tke 
(kriT^ftt »At on th^ irffar ooat. Th«s Auieaobile tmo 
driv«tn 9»9%vT]L/ ^oag ikiia street until it r««eb«4 
fiottth JAOth otri^^t. It wfMi th^m turned into Houth HisttH 
•tro«t KI14 tr».v«l'»d eouth towsirdo th« railrond tr«oJca« 
Th« rTia«stai« is in oosifliat «• to th» iij|^o«<i of th<? uuto* 
«o*il« J»e»t b*for« and »t ti»« tinw of th«» oollioion, 
Rth^l i;hiu4btt«tjh, %hfr drir«r, oaidi th« opood vftri<»d from 
ft to 12 all** «m J»ur. tu* wit«^» iJtmrp^o, n oohBOl 
t««en«r, wlio at th» ti)at« v«« driving an autojM«)9il«! n 
littl« taor« thtm 6C< foot, juet iMOk of th<* «»?? in <iu«»- 
tton, oiiitod tJM ep«»«d to b«» frwBi IC to Id ail«» aui >vstir 



a«ajr«r th« TaiXr»*4 t.r«afe». thts •spitn<*«»«» ftor th* 4#» 
fcnaimt 4-*«:«rili«d %hi^ eji^^d n* tr^m X^ %& 80 )etil»ft ad» 
noujri ea« i^ui It an HAfih a* 9C ,^le» t^M tmat* Ju^t 
prior to r^tk^hitxsi ^^ rttXXr9«4 tx^MiSkii %h? tiiiut«»%^ll« 
w«iS on t>h<» ««ei 9i4* of Soutn TUnth itr*«!)t g;^in4 troutli 
iat4 «hoytly 1i»for« 3P'*»oM»ia th« rsilmAd tmtrtc^ it imm 
tura«di •oisirwhAt t» thw left into t^« fttr«<^l milwfty 
traJikn whieh ;te3r« iti tlM» «(»ni«jr fif Mintk iitr«<7t. Th* 
auto«ebil« ^ASft'td ever tho nojrth«rl/ tr««ilc of ih« 
ir«tMu»h ri9tlijroft4 mnd ttitra im« stntok V the n<»rt%Mtast 
9ori}«r of th.ft KXimX ear wkieh wie «.! th« forvnni »n<i 
•f tiiff tmrin^ fr«i£;ht trniu* th« faront «iMl of th« 
ftutei»eli41« «(%« ttruv^d Ui on tlv» rii^ia eidff «Mi<t« a1«* 

froBi tU>» 6«at«i' •!? ih« mtro^t of#r to, «nd cllghtly 
».«]%«« th« •Idiftwaik, »mi «arbnn th«'^ (X>lli»lon im« eritr 
It poiat«4 in 4k!!)M»ut ti^« »«M»« 41re0il«ia la which %im %T»in 
vfts £oiitg. th<> plaintiff ««• tiu»»iain fre«i tb« *<it«»iobU« 

At th<i aloae of th« '?'?iil.«»«o», a asotion «a» »sii^ 
thai %h<9 Jttj^ Ixv ia«tru«t«4 to find th«9 «i«^««ntifiu!it not 
(Miltjr. '¥hAt notiom vuis OT«yrtil<NI« Yi^tf Jury bro»%i4t 
in ft Tnrdlot f»-<f Id,c0^00, iua/A i^^oo t)9Mt» Jlwim«»% «»<» 

It in j«.3t«ii4«dt lagr th« d«fffi»€l»nt, (X) tlwt %h» 
plAlntlff vao guilty of oontributorjr nAgli£;nn««$ (S) tllftt 
fto to nfti;li,£;«ito4 «o tiio part of t^ tt«f«n<io,nt» tjiw y«»«w 
4iet la i»s»nifo»t!ljr Ai^^'Alast the woi^bt mt tho ^^Yid^'nco; 
(3) tUa'l o#rt«in «Yi4««3« w«i» itrronoouol^ a<tailtt«4; (4) 

to jufstlty t<i« t<> noZkUS ton ihat tiiii ^^.jstiutiff ^its ittt«l.t^ 
•r *s©n%yibwtory n«glig»ii«*». Th«r5? in »e fiivid^s^* wMlah 

wn^ tQ oautioa ih«» (l:iriv<»r of -Xtoe. »\k\eHm\tXX», th» X«««JL* 
MniJig iMKSkvnrda fron a rftther olittourr r«%l«>») th*t V«1X 

ir«yy ooaA^iauoufi 3u» « w-<%rnini§{ th« milwiXlKig of th& mn» 

ins ''■<^ «iti%UiR*«i>itn t)m% sai^M '^ «>»« ^f 4rtt7« a«ini^'«r« ttll4 

i#n that II***?'? >#«« f»3jil,ff »^i4«iio«i» %<t justify ihp ittjry ia 

ftBt «AS guilty of A«^Ii£<me« «tt«i iiaat ib# >>l«intiff iv^if 

in tH« <»x«relAa or or4inar>- ■^, 8f^>MMtiirig»« Vj^ ^11. .Sfialfc 

aUkJ2*l-. 1«« au Ap^. 8411} l^a.ia. 3U ,4<*^ ,<im%r.. ,^f, -Jfc- » 

ut m, ^p. «ai. ..>}i*?hx y. Ill, i?> ay- c:c« . Ui tix, ap?, 

iaifissa.U X*. u,k» %r i^ a y. itr, -^o. . aoa ixi. j^i?, 44st 
^ftaaat MSS,* X* xxi* a> n. op ., ace III. Aps». «0j ^aiisli* 

Ate* v% Xt-.-g* a> ^f, op** ^^- ^ii« Ai>si. «^^i I3|arigtim^i]> v^ 

111. 3cifyl^ H,..H« Qtt «,. X99 III. Ai*;;". 13». 

{yi AM to t^ ft4»iBnil»llity of e<*rtaiii 
•vid^Jiiaoj It io (3«Ht^ndea on behnif of th« 4i>f«(aifmt 
tJMt «n lrt|>roper )3iy^poth<eti<ml queotl&s wnjs put to n 
Ueotor aailled by th* iilAintXff; thnt %lim «|u««tieii did 
not Includff «I1 th« »«99s«nr/ faot», Tl^^^ (ioetor whm 
Ankcii whether ia tii* eplaion certain faotR w«rt? imf*> 
fioltfnt to Ju^tJlfy him In ctHting; whether "ths pr«»»»ait 
•enditltfQ of dl ?aino«» nnd t>M^ i)ala» in tli^ baolc of 
Ui« ha»ii tm4 >m^, and th« oldN» * * <» eould ^yo h^tn 
onuood • » * by the isxfury* «tc. That «»» ot»4«i.te<t 
to **9Q not ««r9ViBJLng kill of tho faote*** It wao put* 
««i^ 8biio««T«(l, ]f&u, liM wn.* thm'. A«k«.''d «h«thflr h« had 
ttn o^inloA im t» «h«th«r tl^w&o injurifio ««r« p^rfium^nt. - 
Tl^t mxn e'bjf«ot<«4 to« but allowed* H« amtwerati. ye^a. 
A»ti, tHrm* «>tk«(t ^hat tlKkt opinioia was, hn oeld, *3l}a^t 
It 2m« tioon in fftxjlstonet* thr«« y<«j%r», mai in ny oplnioa 
It i« si«rw«n»nt.** Th« doctor did not tftotiiy that tho 
liijurl<i»» w(»r« aiHuAlly t)aff r Kult, but t hit they "could 
hftTo b«(^n «au»<»d* by, «to. Th« dl&tination nay s«i« 
»loo, \»ut in ronlitjr it i« eutoetantial, Zt follows, 
ih'-r»tor0 , t.'a»t# i»lthou{;h nn hypothtftioal qu<A«itica 
4090 not ooQtain nil th«*^ faots th« «vid<tiiQ« »«gr tond 
to prove, ito Xotia a» th« oxpwrt in only »aked whetJaor 
upon th<« aoou^ption of tboRO i^atuAlXy stated t^y adgM 
•ftttoo o; brini? nlMut a o«jrt&in oomLitlon, the qu«»tion 
io uiiob4«otli)n«ibltt, ;^ln<te« Jj, ahi.c,'>fi:o i^o, gp.» , 879 III, 

It is furtn«r ODnt««»d0d on bohftlf of oounooli 

for tho d«fondant theit b«oaus« osi« of tHo pLfdntifr** 

witnoooos hftd tuiitif ied on direct oxtualniition that ho 

mtar t)tf» auto»tobilM in quetttlon and ob«orv«<^ th«» naoMno 

until It n*firly r«»a.?h«?a the traokis, tiiat h« ahould have 
boon aliowed on oro»o-«aw»iBati<^a to aok about tlio aj^eod 

of tn^ natoiselllXtt, Thai o<M«t«nti&n it unt«alibl«. 
i^hvthiS'r or mH 'fch«' «ita^»e saw thfl> «iut«»'^'tobil« aid s^t 
OAo^^asjiiril;^ eutkrt o<in9<»t^nt nny qu«<stl9a on aro ««••%!«(»» 
leiAtlon tt8 iti ,i'tni t;<i»<*<»d. Than« too, tHon^ w^s no «i»Mei«.l 

witn«!tte hist o^m far th«i |»usrpoi»«* 

It vauB ftl8>( aont«»nd«d tlvtt ills «»urt 9rre<ll in re* 
fusiniS to atllow t^« tseun«<til for %im disfttsidHnx to ask th® 
plaintiff «i^ »}^<9 hi'-.A ytxOiX^ht h«iT law »uit in Chl<m£0. 
Coneid^^iag tli* isnuoe lnYolv«d, thmt qufi^sUon w»8 prcp«r» 
Xjf r\»Xf<^(i out on ih« nxvimd th&t it wa» sntirely iMawttfrlAl 
Ana ooald in ao way }u»v« any 'bi'^nring upon %h« mAtt«r b«« 
for* th« <3o art. 

S«'V«r^X othtr oont«nt2o»« «F#r<> iaaa« oonoerning 
Afttterti cf «videnstft. Upon «x8mia«ttio», ve find th^^'sj un« 

(4) A» to th« <4A»ag«» b«lais Axofteieitrffi X^tntfdiato- 
1/ Kftor Wing thatovn tr^wt %h^ «utoJraol}iI«» the plaintiff «»• 
takon in an ambaltinoT- to th« m* Blii»«b«»th*ft Hoo^it&X. ^:ih« 
bad r«o<fiT^d A voimd in th«*' t»iMil.p about %w& nnii on0*half 
inohoe in i«ngthu The nasal bono wao fraotureU. THo rii;ht 
oitlo of h«r faoe ^vaa diooolorod. Th«r« vao a frnotaro of 
tho aygomatio praof^mtt of tins tosftperal bona on t)m right 
aid*. th» tarom. Juet poetsrior to th« aajr (aio) wait dia* 
oolored. th«t for«ar»B from th«» elbow down w<rr« dia^olorod 
and brui«<9d And likowlao th«< lo^a froait tb« kn^aa down to th« 
aniclee, no oottplainad of m. s>aln in tnc!^ bads of h«r hoad 
on th« ri^nt aide and a i»ain in th<o Xistftbar rogion, For 
t»j« firwt five dtt^/o thereafter hor epoeoh wa* i!ftor<» Or l«e» 
irrational, Blia r«fiiain«»d in th«; hospital about ton degfo. 

The do«*«r who %r««ikt«cl h«»r teBtifi«4 tlmi nrinr %(a th« 

jjiainful faurtiBtrutttiors. "*vi«lii«tly aft«r Iha cio«14«nt 
•te« isivd no raooXX<»9ti.on of «ir«nt» until ih« «u<ict««diiiis 
23*4 <i«/ Of Jul^. T)j« d© 'fltor who tre4at«<J imr ^ la^iiinninn 
Cdt«)»«r« X^ia, %ft&%k^i*d timt Bk« te-^ a T«.«r^' |KJ>or titiiin* 
][^« Xi\itt, ofta fianplaln($d of «tor4«s«»«« in tiit \mok ami 

troablAd witli 8ftO0!34ur7 ann«9aiA ($aue«<i from poojr h«o.lth» 
Io«ti of 1^1cig4» .^njur^ or s^heok; ij»£t% »<ii«^ ^ln«4 <q['«»ltit 
rmpmiy \xn4ff-r hi» tr«KtEa«nt fxtitm eetob«r, 19X6, t« 
^rsht 19X7, Unr irrv^l&r £&«n<ttruAtlon h« attributed 
to i»nA4NaiA, Him alao wmsulte^ hXtn About hfi>r kntfs mx'i 

t)M pXiun^lf:: Atireolf t^^st&fiud th^t ffllMi Stif* 
f«r«tl pwln in th*j b*i«k «f her h«!«d ana h«r hands «m«i 
alMiom«n «md In )i«r It^ft lkna««2 ^^^ ^^'S' g;w)m shruok mwm/ 
fro« h«ir t««<l^tis timt th<? Iwft frftnt tooth v«.» t>i-«k«itt »ff» 
ttwt hsr fi»Q« vttB Music and blu« «!D<a h^r nOii« «u»<i rlt^ht 
•y« •vo?.l«n; thnt ah<ii suff'^rod mtol^rabl/ %h«i »99onA 
wfU 9S%9T th« Anjujpy; tiiat »h« »«8 ncrvouB and unable 
to «l*»'»i>S tiwt liHrt »«Ji not «bl«» *.o v^lk without holdinu 
on te 8o»« thine; th^t cLsring the firet »ix wofltko h«r 
&««<} pftiaod )i«r £m4 boiXa or 9liiiM9>^««» (I«tv<»l0£>«ct on It; 
t)«it during the' wiat«r of 19X5 t%n4 19X6 «H9 >]^(i ito e^ppn^ 
tlt« a.Bd: Tiv»0 n«rv0u» ^na irrXt&l^le »m^ was not «tbX9 to 
Rl»«»p well; -fthttt new bajk: mad t)w? laKaaic ©f iwr b&su^ * 
jNftAaod h#r JB«r« thon »jrjytnln^ oIboj tlwkt «hortly aXt«r 
th» a«}«Ji<i«nt «h/.» »»w«4 fee oplt blood: %h»t »he io «tlll 


n«rvoa» And in wnm wcatlunr in not K>jile to »1(}<I9; %}m% 
ph^f .now »'aff«rB ttatnX trota tia* palnii !» %m ^nok of h»r 
h««4 «a4 In \h» ri<?M «lrfn »f h«»r fe«oitj tiwit prior to 
tk« injury hnr H^t^th vmm vor/ «;c;«4 natt «h» w9k^mA frt»m 
140 to 148 pnuAiiKs tlQAt aftov (fht^ t«tum»a lro& tb«) ho»* 
pitAl oUo w«i^ii'»(i li^ ;»oun(ttf anti in ^.arah» prior to t)»e 
triftl, 140 ifijumlHm 

Coneidc»rlng &11 th^" ^r<iu]ast«tno«o, th^ aufforing, 
tH« R<jituaX pJcgriiiOAl in4uri«tt« tfe« diefigurAieaentt th« loso 
of voX^ht, an^ th>» <«vid«)noe tto&rlnifi Ujion th« pemaanonoo 

of th«j <j«.nfjp«il i»i>Air»«at of imr h«ttlth, w« tie »©t fool 
juiitiflo4 in oonolu41ng livnt t^* vorUiot «fi.« iaio»o«ivo. 

(8) It iw ocnt«>nd«4 t^y*t tH«v giving of tho 

•If you bolioTO from a prep©n4«r»n«« of 
th« ^vid^n*;*? tl«ii tJhi« -^laiwiiff vfto « guoot 
In th« nutcnaobilo at th'* tlww of tteo ii<faid«»rit 
»t the ;lnTittitio« of t.'5« ow»»2' without »uti.»r- 
it/ tc <iirftQt or &n aA> siiHnnor eiontrol ttM> 
Qon^uot of t?**"' clriT<©r ©f thp «^utoiael>iio aad 
thi^t t(«^forft AnU %t th(Y tlao of th(» &ooiti«t3t 
o)M «ft» in %h^ «!>x«roieo of ora^nnry o»r« for 
kor own ukl^etjr, th«n t^c ntt^Iigonce of tho 
dri-vnr of the «utOi»ob&lo, if Kn/, o<^idil<i not 
)i« imi>u'»o<* ^c h«r» * 

Vo ur« not Ahlm to oa/ thitt thff w»« of Umi 
«ror4 "otttJbority* Titlatoo tho lastruotioii. t't oouroo* 
Abo might opottk and e.i^« infornuition of inpenditie; <liKi4f#r, 
• till tho outJiiorit/ to <iir«ot aa<i oentrol the ^mtoraobilo 
r«saaift««i i»it«! tfte tfrlvor. Ana, th^n fuirtij«r, U»<» jury 
wero a«finit4ly in»truot«4 in thw fifth anti oovonth 
instruotiono ^v«n for tester aofuAdant ao to Juot «hi&t tlsa 
duty of tH« pla;intiff was m)mn ridins na n p«««son«or in 
th« Auto»tobil«s aiifi that wao, in p«i't , "ut ««»iot »uoh 



251 V 84608 

^ ^■^ .,■ \ 

£16 I*A. ut3 * 

\ / 5 eeci: acimrx. 

KR. JUBTIOi*: tAYLCS d«liY«r»a th« opinion 
•f thft oourt, 

Th« plaintiff, h&Ting \teer\ strucdc ana injured 
ligr d«f«nd«tnt*e autoaobil«, while eroseing Twelfth str««i, 
brought suit for dastRgce, ?he <mua« was tried before » 
Jlnry »nd » verdioi and Judgment en tiered in faTor of the 
Aefeadant. Thia apj^eaL ie th«r«fro», 

Shortly after three «*el9ok on Mar Oh IC, 1915 » 
the plaintif/, 6S /•^«^r& of li^e* by prof ««e ion a tea«h«r« 
who liTed near th<» cotyior of Twelfth and liobey etroeta 
started to walk north aoroaa the interoeotion of Twelfth 
uid Robejr Rtreoto. Twelfth street la an oast and wast 
street. Hobey street oroeantt it but not at a right anglM, 
The weat line of Robey street* wh«rr# It etrikea the north lino 
•f Twelfth street, ie about 91 fe«t farth«»r east than the south* 
west oorn«*r of Robey and Twelfth etreets. Th«r«& ar^ two linos 
of street oar traelcs on Hobey street whioh extend north* 
Oaeterly and seathwesterl^ , Umt ie , diagonally aoroee 
Twelfth atre«tt. Twelfth street is 140 feet wide. That 
spaee, beginning at the south line, is made uy as followe: 
Sidewalk, 14 feet; etreet containing otreet sar traok* 26 

fe«t; p«rk«iiy, XS f«4%t; boulevard, 4C feet; parkvajft X& 
f«et; Btr««»t cont»inins atrowt anr traeJc, 26 f#et; sidewallc 
14 f»«t. From t}»f> •Tld^-'aoe it is a juetifabl« lnf«reno«, 
tiwt thn n«lighborh»od was alexely built up, Th« plaintiff 
bftd erotiAec: over to th« ««8t «nd of th« •«»! p&r]nngr« «jid 
from th<»7« h# ntftTt^a north, porhnps « littlo w«0t of 
north, to orooe th« bouleT«rd in Tw«ljfth otroet, that 

part of It oT«»r vhioh tho HobOjr stroot <mr traoko run 

was traveling east 

northftaaterl;/ and eouthwosterly, Tho d«f»ndant/^n th« 
•outh side of tlio bo<il«yard*«r«a of twolfth street driY* 
log, whftt 1b o«ai>iid, » riTo |»ass«nger touring ear with 
a ooupe body on it* 

Tho ovid«»ieo of the defendant 1« tc the effeet 
that» a« he a^preachod th<» wuthirest eom«r,( haTlnif r#fer» 
en««» to the bouievard area) he iwae drlYlisK nbout lb miles 
an hour; that he sieved up ami blew hio hora on aooovmt 
of two ehildren who w«re going aoross to the north; that 
they waited until he went by; that at that time he was 
about 37 or 38 f«et fro« th** nearest street car traek and 
at that tiae he saw the d«fend«»t going north; that the 
defendant was then about a quarter of the «sy aoroas the 
beulerard and th e autoatobile about ftO feet a«iy; that 
the plaintiff was at that thae fire or six feet t<? the 
north and th«*re was about 1» feet of apaas'^ between the 
plaintiff and th* eouth owrre of the boulevard; that 
the plsiatiff was walking at a i»oderate rate of speed 
with hie head down; that a» the auto'tobil^ approaohed 
witlila about five feet of the plaintiff, the plaintiff 
"stopped and threw up hie h^jids and b»(eke4 into th« 


naehlne four or fiT« st^ps*; th»t h« th«»n throw on thft 
•tacrgtnqjr bnsi]c«u an<i thu <mr ftt&ppmi within 5 fft«t; that 
ftt that tiQ)« th« plaintiff «•• un^or the front «nd of 
th« otkr, his h«aU Winis to th« AKSt Mud his f««t to th^ 
w««t; that ha Aid not blow hie horn. 

Th« teHtlzaony of the vltner«« %ta &«rts « who 
«a« t>«l]cin4S Koutla &oros« tho intersoction * i» to th« 
•ff«;et tlMit Mho puMnefi the plaintiff Just as h* »t«pp«d 
into thie boulevard; that »hm notiocd a siaeMn« oomlng 
from tlvt «••% and raised her hand, "bcoause 1 eav it wee 
r-aanin^: kind of faet ao I rai»«d ay hand and eereaaed", 
*to the nam that ^aa in tiie raaehiae beoattae X «aa afxiBiid 
t9r ut, LffTineon.*' She further testified that the defend* 
aat was "goinfi faat* and Xh&X at %hf^ time ahe vr<R.iTed her hand 
the auteiQe\>il«««aa en the oth<?r eide of the street veet 
• f the traoks. 

It is the tividenoe of tho* witness Morris Frioe 
that ther^? wiaa a lumber wa«on going aouthmiaterly on 
Kebe^ street* in the bdulerard, at the time that the d«« 
fendaat wae ^beut to erees Ho bey street, and aa they 
ve/a ooaing together* tue driver «f the vagon «ae eon* 
polled to slaoken his s^eed and turn his horses out 
elightljr in orvier to let the autosaobile which h<? snyn 
•was going pretty fast" go by. HIb teetimeay nui^i^eets 
that th« plaintiff be same oonfused by reas'^n of the wagoa 
sn one hand and thi«^ rapidly spproaohing automobile on 
the other and that in tr/ing to got oat of the way he was 
struck. On oress-exaialaation hs testified that the plain* 
tiff "tried to get out either way andhe oould not*; tl!»t 


h« kept going north tmtxl atrudc, 

Th<» wiin<»«e 7ull«yraan t«atlfl«d that tKe auto* 
setolls was going froRi 2C to 25 milee an hci^r; thut tho 
plaintiff, before he ntarted to valk on thrt boulevard 
looked east, ««nt and north. IVirther* that th<fr(* into a 
wagon going eouth In Roboy otreet. When R»l;e4 «• to the 
automobile he anoveredt "It tvae right en th<» traoka at 
that tine, X «111 tell you. he was going eo nudiien 
eoming around the va^on that I oouid not regally place 
where ho «aa at that tisjate." The evitienoe of Harry Goldberg 
in to the «ffeot that the* auto^^obllo waa go^ng "pretty 
faat*. The oTldon^o of another Harry Goldberg, a aohool 
boy, le to the ^ffeot that h« m&m going north on hln way 
heae frt)jni aohool; that he did not r<»:a<»mber any wag a; 
that aa th«t aut«taobile came up htf let it go 1^ and 
th«?n atarted aeroea himaalf ; that he ^ard a shriek 
and looked aro^rnd and aa* the oolUaion; that the auto* 
fiiabila as it waa going eaat turned frcm th«* north aliie 
of thp boulevard towardo th« south. 

Th« ovldenoe of the plaintiff hiaeelf aa to the 
olreumstaneea at tho titae he waa struok ie entirely nog* 
llgible; he teetifled aomewhat oonoemliig hie injuries 
but waai«>parentl> unable to reoall anything deflaite oon- 
aomlag the no aid en t itaolf. 

The evideBoe of the witnc«aa Mr*. ]hk]^|Mta la to 
the effect that ahe a«w a lumber wsgoa,in the teaa trade, 
eaat of tine ator«» in which ahe worked and that it w^a 
going vraat; that the ijlalntiff waa walking aj}par«?ntly 
straight ahead on the boulevard towftrda the store in w}vloh 



«he worked; %hat, as th« autoiso^llft ap:!>roaQh«d the plain- 
tiff, 8h« tta.w hin 'rain* his hand ana «t«p bvtdk.^ard**; 
"He ran ijaokwArda, I aav hin raitttt hla hand «nd run bActk 
then X Been the auto^iobile hit him"; that he ran straight 
back a1»o it 4 or 5 fe«t; that the autOMOhila ima going from 
ten to tirelTH miles an hour. 

It is the oontention of the plaintiff, (X) 

that th(» Ycrdiot is a^adnet the preponderanoe of the 

OTidence; and {il) that the Jury were erroneousl/ inntructed 
aa to th<* laxir, 

(1) It it; t;nf? theory of th« defendant that he 
was driving hie automeVil* east on Twelfth etreet at 
about 15 ailee an hour and tnat when he arriTfd at the 
intereeotion he elowed up to let eose d^ildren who were 
going acrosB to the north paee by; tliat they, howeTer, 
did not oroee ii«utediately but waited until h**' went by; 
that, at that tliae, he saw the d^fe^nU«mt about a quarter 
of the jfay aoronte the bo.<IeTar4, going north, the auto« 
»obilf> being then about SC feet went of him; tlmt when 
in the^ intruediate Tloinlty of the plaintiff and about to 
pa«B to the south eide of hia, the plaintiff, who «aa 
tralking north, nt a laodarata rate of speed, with hit 
bead down, sudditnly stopped and throw up his hands and 
baoked four or fxve steps so that thr autooiobile oaa* 
in eellision with hiza. 

It is the thoary of the plaintiff that • while in 
the exeroiee of due eara and aft^r looking east - he had 
Just started north tc orose the boulervard when the plain* 
tiff, going at an unreasonable speed, negligently droY* 

into him. 

Th« ihsor^ of the d«f«ml«nt it •upport»d >ay hi« 
own t^etioony aad th«t of the witn«»B ?'rt. P8ipp«s» both 
of ir>»m atnto tlwt the ,;l«lntiff startodi baOkvards at ixiat 
about th» tiia« that th« autoiao1iil«? r«>aohed hlM, 

It is (iiffloult to rt^oonoilc all the «videno4» 
of the different witneeoee. Aeoording to th<" )»ita«ao Prioe, 
it would neoi thr<t tlie plai.nt.lff got oaui ht unexpeotedXy 
bot«e«^n the wa^oii, whioh he teatified was crosoing Hobey 
street, and the uutoi40bile, and in the conTuelon, And 
endeavoring to ({Ot out of the ^ay, wno tstruok. The wit* 
neoB /ullermnn. in part, oor^roborat*?* Prioe in regard to 
the AutOioobxle. He oaid "it was right on the trades 

at that tiae » » »h» was goln^ so sudden eoming aroiuid 
the wagon tha1» I eould not really plaeo where he was at 
that time.* C« the other hand Mrs. Pappaa stated that 
she saw a luwber wacon in *,hf team traok but that it 
waa east of her store. Harry Goldberg, the sohool boy» 
stated that he did not reaesiber any w^^gon. Bra Gerts 
did not aention aeeing the wa^on. The testimony In 
regard to the »pe«*d of the autoiaobilo Just prior to the 
tine it struck the plaintiff rariee. lirs. Pappas puts 
it at ten to twelve mil.?B an hour. The def^^ndant, that 
he started aoross the tracks at ten miles an hour. ^^ra 
Gerts, that he was going fast. Price, that it 'was 
goinu pretty fast, • Fullerman, tlrnt it was going from 
twenty to twenty-five izLilee an hour. 

Another cirouastance to be o< neidered ie the 
testimony of yjarry Goldberg, the school bo^ , that the 

,;0 -,j,^' 


tmt V 


ftutem«bile as it <i»»e on east tunned fron th<! north Bi4« 
• f th« 'boulevard towards th^ tto>t^u Of oovirsa. If that 
is truff, it }4ij^ be that the defendant waa undftrtaking to 
got bjr tho Itim%>«r wngon witiiout waiting to go atrai£;ht 
east. St is iiflponoibXe to r<>ooneilo th<i» t^ctis^njr in 
r^sard to tho most important oirouaotane**?. If tho #>laln» 
tiff vmdertook to eroer and st^rt<^d north and had gotton 
far onotjigh north to X«ot<* roon for th« autonobile to 
paaa by him to th« eoatU* and the automobile vae going 
at a reasonable speed at that tinta, foiu ^^et, ^without 
warning and unex^eetediy, he started baok south in the 
path of the automobile an«i the defendant did not Iiay* 
tine, thoufc^h exerci«ln{£ care, to prrrent running into 
him, of cwurse, th^^re is no Xiabilitjr, If the jusy 
oonaiupred the evidence in that li»jht, and thfre was 
eyidenoe tending to proTO that to be t>ift situation of 
faott it follows, af eourso, that wo wotild iot \h* justi- 
fied in overriding the rerdiot. It i s truo there is 
•aough evidenoe in the reoord to ^cive rioa at least to 
a strong 8uej;>ioioB that the dof^ndaat was negligent but 
wo do not feel reasonably Justified, bearing in mind all 
the evidenee. in ooncluding that the verdlot of the jury 
was ol ear/y u^lnat the weight of th«^ <«vldenee, 

Vhere, in h personal injury oase, after a fair 
trial, a verdiot has been rendered for the defeniant, it 
is but reasonable that a eourt of r«^view, detaehed as it 
is from the pregnant atiaosphere of the trial ecurt. should 
treat that oonoluaion With oonsiUerable respeot, 

(2) As to thr- inift ructions. Ten iastruotioiMl 
••re given on behalf of the plaintiff and fourteen instruo* 


tions on behalf 9f* %h«i d«fendiust. Th«* d«fsndant t«ok ea&» 
d«ptloii to all of th« inetrueiion« AfferftiJ hy th« pliiin* 
tiff, Cemplalni is nade of ln« trust ion 0, glTvn on b«« 
half of lite d«f<»n4ant, that it is ar(rtt»entatiT«. Upon 
•xattlnatlon of ^hat Instruction v« do not find that it 
i« e^j»^otlonabl(f , eispeeially, vh<m takon in o-.njunotioa 
with inetruotion ten, (jiTen on behalf of the plaintiff* 
they oonBtitutc» a T«ry fair atatamimt of the? 1&«. The 
eoBiplaint that Instruotiona F, I, nnu 0, ur<^ th(» phraaos 
•m«r« aoeident** *ffl<»re happening of the accident* , does 
not oonstituto, in our judgraont, euoh reiteration as to 
he error, ffor do we think it error that a certain mmher 
of inetruotlona end, ouhotantially* with the ezpreeaion, 
"you should return a Tcrdiot of not guilty*. An exaaimi* 
tion of all th«\ instruct ions shovo that th«>y are properly 
based upon the evidonoo in the saee and that th«ty do not 
in any in at an c<? Binulf? out and make ccmepicueus any 
isolated disputed fast. Takini; them, aXL In all, we are 
of the opinion that th«^ qttlto accurately an<J «gth»uatively 
instructed the Jury as to th« law applicahlo to th© evi- 

Findin*; no error in the r«oor<j the Juagjae'nt i» 


U% - 2469t 





K.y' \„.^" 

16I.A. 63T 

iApp«ll4c«. ) 


im. jntlfiTXC': fAYLOH dftliv^red %h» opinion tt 

t]i« oeurt. 

On July 20, 1918, «li« plaintiff. Max G. Hunxer, 
filed in th« Munioiiml CNtiurt an affid»Tit for atta«teii«nt 
ficttinc up th»t tli« d«f«!nd«at, OHriet B»ymai»n, #«» in* 
d*^t*4 to hln in the mns ftf I1S5.CC, '*9ttr«u«nt to bis 
acr««raent and premin* te 9«/ thff e«id affiant Bftid ««r(Kft4 
•un for brok«r»g« at the a£r««<i rmf of en« doll&r (J^l.C'O) 
y«r a«s« for o«ariain 1^8 eae«a uf goods, w^^Me «in<t »«>]r* 
ohMidis* solti for hira, »aid Christ Beysohon, by sold 
Rffiflmt •« a \»rok«r, on to««it, the IStli day of July A,B. 
1913, » » ♦ to certain p4»reont at a4sr#«<l prie«a fixo<Si Iqr 
oaia d«f«>n<iant«* 

An attaoJvQent writ wae 4uly ineuM »ji;»Anot tfoo 
dff«ndftnt an<3 alao a«;nineit on* Julius Lo#a«r, ao garni oiioo, 
and on ttaio e«n« data rotumad *no property found* a« to 
the defendant but with oorvioa upon th« garnish«o. On 
August 14, 1913, the apijoaranoa of th« dafonuant was an* 
t«rf»d. On August 19, 1918, the (»ttaa wao tried in tha 

Muaiolpfil Court without a ijiiry. In the O' urse of th« 
trial it w»e •{faaitt«<i that at th« tia* of terrioc on the 
fAraialie« he &vd th# d«fen(l«Rt th« sua of $1S8,C0. At 
th« cloti4» of tho plaintiff's «vid«noe the trial Jud^« 
boing of th«» opinion that there wao a Tarianoft 'b«t«««a 
th« OTidaaoo and the faato sot up in tho affianvit of 
att«ehm«»nt» «»nt^r«d Judgmont for the d«f<»n<iant. 

It its the tJboory ©f th« fjlaiatiff ti'iat th<i?re 
was no Yarianoo, an<) that if thrre woro, ho thouici htxym 
boon allovo'i, upon his notion, whioh h« maae 1» the 
oouroo of the trial* hofore Jjudgraont. to amoiKl th« »tato« 
Meat of olaist. Tho t^etinonjr fts to th^ oontraot vheroliiir 
the plaintiff olainod th« 4efen0ant owed hi« 1128. CC vao 
▼«r^ oonflieting though th<«r« wao at<9q(»le evideno9 ea the 
part of the plaintiff. If holioTed, to juetify the ooifc- 
oluoion that tho 4ef«ndant promioed to pa^ th« oqulra* 
lost of 31.00 a aaoe for oortain aerchandiso whioh the 
plaintiff hail undertaken either to purehase or sell for 
the defendant. The e^rideno^ 8>»we that tho defendant 
otmed oertaia oaoee of vineci and liquoro and that the 
plaintiff undertook to make a oaoh oale for him of about 
128 oaeeo with th«» uBderetrtJiding that he wae to got #1.00 
a oaoe for hlo a«rrioee or ao eoMniseion; and Ki*»en object* 
ioa was made ia th« opuoao of the trial that tho plain* 
tiff»B oYidenee tended to ohow that ho did not oot ao a 
broker the plaintiff requeeted that he be allowod to aaend 
the ntatonent in hie affidnvit of attaohment. That re* 
quest th<» eourt r<?fu8ed. 

7roa the riew we take of it, toweror, th^'r"* io 


ao omtvrial Yarian^«, for w« are of the opinion that tlm 
ijlaintlff wan entitled, under the et«t«aent in hl» 
affidAvit for attaohaitnit* t« put in the «Yidanott whi«li 
h« efferofi. Ttet at«tcsQ«i)t in th» affidavit of attae2»- 
m«nt real too that tli« d«f«n<i&nt is indebted te the plain* 
tiff *pttrsuant to Mb a4sre«i»«nt and proaiee to pay tho 
oaid affiant aaid agreed oust" <»to« The mere faot that the 
otateraent then went on «»d unUertook to explain vhat that 
»ao for doee not render th« fmriatnae that vao off«>retf 
Inoompetent. It nay be oomewhat dlf lei«lt fvoa the 
vrldenee that van introttuoed and offerod to detonnlno 
exactly whether the money pronlROd hy the defendant to 
the plaintiff eiiould W oalled hrokerage or a oenmleioion 
or oojopeaoation for oerTleeo rendered. ^« are of the 
opinion that the <30urt erred in exaluding the evidence 
whioh wae offered to eho« all the taaterlal olrouaotanooo 
involved in the tranaaotion. 

Further, «e are of the opinion that the plain* 
tiff ohould have "been allowed to nake the anondiaent. An 
aaMndmont to oor/eepond with the oxaot >iature of the oral 
Qontraot 1»«t«o«n the plaintiff nwi defendunt aa o)iown hy 
the evidenee would not he the et^&teraent of a new eerleo 
of faotoa hut merroXy a mor» apt expreeeion of the toxms 
of that eontraot* and ita result; nnd, fiu>ther, it would 
not in argr wny set up anything arieing s?u1^»equent to the 
ioeuanoe of the writ. £»eetion 23 of Chapter 11 (Hurd*s 
Statutoa 1016) i« authority for Juot euoh im amendment* 
S&K: Xi. Keith . 134 ill, App, X22i llailey Xa. VftHoy a atX. 
Isai, 187 Ul. 332; IJOgMO v. Corbit . 196 111. B4t. Tho 
trifiil judfio announood "you oan aaoad the iMind but you 






Owing to th«i «rr(}r« i»«ntienff<l th« Ju4|pa«nt le 

75 - 24930 


;iainciff in Err 

a corporation, / 

l.iefea,dant in 3#ror. 

/ ( 

jei6I.A, 68 



Plaintiff brougJat suit to recover coffipensation for 
perscnal injuries 3]lev;ej to have fceexi cauaed by tne negligence 
of trie defeadar.t. Upon trial tiie jury returned a verdict finding 
defendant not guilty, and jud^ent was so enttred, whicii plaintiff 
aeeks to Jaave reversed. 

Tae acpident happened on Ui.e evening cf october 3 2, 
1915, en 35tn. street in Giiicago. A "iJusinesa Leri's Aasuciatioa" 
was holding a street, carnival on tiiia street at tiiis time, and a 
part of tne carnival w?>8 a parade of motor trucJcs, scii£ oi which 
belonged tc the defendant. Plaintiff *as acting as marsnall of 
the rarade. One of such motor tiucks crossed Indiana avenue 
going east on 35tn street and nfter proceeding a short distance 
overtook the plaintiff, 'arho vms on horsehack. Ilsintiff was 
thrown frcffi the horse, falling in front cf tne truck. One cf 
his legs was caught in the run.'.ing gear and broken. There was a 
conflict in the evidence as to wnether or not the truck collided 
with the horse or whether the horse stuiiibled without "being 
touched oy tne truck and, partly falling, threw plaintiff orto 
the car track. 

The jury cculd properly believe that defendant's 
truck crossed Indiana avenue and proceeded eastward on 35th 

>C,W^U - c' 

>^ '.'■■^ -A. i»/ 


JJ -:-•: 


>' J^Qjii * ii ^ 

, ^u&'j,4 'xaa '. ^i 

iO.^ fiiiai^-Vji AOAildja b^ 

street, pursuant to signals frcrn the plaintiff, tjbe -aac-iiali of 
the parade; tJiat the truck overtook plaixitiii on his horse^ soiue 
20 feet eaet of Indiansi avenue; that at this time the hoi se '»/&8 
•outh ox tna e&sttcund car tr^ck vmich runs on '6bth street, and 
that the front vmeels cf delerjdai.'t' 8 truck were wxioily ivithin 
the easfbound csr track. There was credible eviaence tenaiug to 
prove th&t the accident was CKused by the stumbling of the horse, 
throwing plaintiff ic the ground. 

The negligencs alleged was tne careless operation of 
the truck; upon the evidence tne jur:y properly fuuxAd that tiiis was 
not proven. The speed of the truck was eetiiaated variously at 
from two to eight iiiles an nour, end after plaintiff fell the 
truck Tfas stopped 'vithin n short distance. The driver /ad pro- 
ceeding carefully, looking nhead, and while plaintiff's horse may 
have collide'1 with the truck, this ■'^ss not caused by the ne^ili- 
genoe of the driver. It was purely an accident wi:dch riiight 
easily nave happened under the circwjaatances witi^out aoyone 'oeing 
at fault. 

Complaint is made of the croas-ex*u'inBtion of plain- 
tiff and the conduct of the trial court in permitting questions 
to be repeated. It is quite evident that the insistence of de- 
fendant's counsel in his questions was c&tised b> the apparent 
disinclination of the witness to answer airectly and deiiniteiy. 
Under tne circumstances there was no error either or: txie poirt 
of court or counsel. 

It was not error to give at defendant's requsst in- 
•truction member 8, to the effect that plaintiff was required to 
••tablish defendant's negligence as alleged in the declaration 
liy the prepanderance of the evidence; such an instructicri. was 
«l>proved in Chicago Union Trac, Co. v. Mee, 218 111. 9. 


The objections cmde to def endant'a instructiona 15 
and 16 are net ci' suffitfieat importance to require a reversal. 

As wc carioct say tiae -verdict of tiie j '.>.ry is 
not in accord with weigJat of the evidence and as there were 
no errors upon the trial, the jcdgf.'.ent is affirmed. 



64 - 25307 

business as CHARLR3 L. DOURHTI^Y 
& CO., ^^. f 



COMiAKY, a corporation, 


2I6I.A0 63 8 



Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages alleged 
to have been suffered because of the failure of tlie defendant to 
furnish water to rub an elevator at latteson, Illinois, which 
plaintiff occupied under a lease from the defendant. The damages 
claimed consist of demurrage, interest on invested capital, wages 
and rent during the period the elevator was closed. Plaintiff 
claimed damages to the extent of $1000 and upon trial by the 
court was awarded $238.75. llaintiff has appealed from the 
Judgment for this amount, claloiing to be entitled to a larger 
sum. Defendant, by cross errors, clnims that plaintiff was 
not entitled to any recovery from the defendant. In 1697 the 
defendant was the owner of a grain elevator on its side tracks 
at itatteson, Illinois, and leased same to the plaintiff, who 
continued to occupy it as lessee until and after this suit. 
This period of time was covered by various written leases in 
which the premises were described by metes and bounds, together 
with "appurtenances* thereto belonging. 

The elevator was operated by stean power, without 
which it was of no value to the lessee. Per seme time after 
1697 the water with which to furnish the steam was supplied by 

.^ ./\ 

defendant through pipe* connecting vith its water power and pumping 
station located a short distance froxs tirxe elevator. For some 
yean this was furnished without extra compensation, but in 
January, 1903* the defendant wrote to plaintiff a letter, whioli 
was duly received, la which, after referring to the lease for 
the use of the elevator and the extension leases, defendant 
stated that it found that through error no bill had been ren- 
dered for the 00 st of water theretofore furnished, and conoluded: 

•Please take notice that effective i'eb, lat, 
this company will render bill against you at 
the rate of six cents per thousand gallons for 
all water which is supplied frora our reservoir 
above mentioned,** 

Fursunnt to this letter the plaintiff thereafter 
paid the defendant for water furnished at the rate therein luen- 
tioned, and defendant continued to furnish water, altnougn no 
mention of it or the chax'ge therefor was made in any of the 
various leases in sffect thereafter or at any time. On December 
31, 1912, the gasoline engine used by the defendant in jumping 
water ^nto the elevator failed to vsork. There seeisa to have 
been a defectivt or broken cylinder, lifnatever was the trouble, 
it does not appear that there was any neglect or unreasonable 
delay on the part of the defendant in attef/pting to make th« 
necessary repairs. Hovrcver, it was not until January 8, 1913, 
about eight or nine days after the breaking down of the engine, 
that the pumping was resu-ned. During this period, and as a 
consequence of the lack of ^ater, the elevator wr>8 closed, sub- 
jecting plaintiff tc the losses clsiBied. It is bIso in evidence 
that there were other sources in latteson which could have sup- 
plied plaintiff with water. The Illinois Central Railroad Co. 
had a supply at the same distance from the elevator as the de- 
fendant's supply, althoug . it does not appear that the Illinois 
Central's supply was connected with the elevator with pipes. 

PlRlntlff claims that the right to water to toe fur- 
nished by defendant paaeed aa appurtenant to the premises demised 
by the written lease, which is dated July 28, 1911, for a term 
of five years from August I, 1911. - the existent lease at the 
time cf the present ooourrenoe. The trial court based its 
judfiitent upon the correctness of this claia, in so doing we 
hold that the court was in error, for the reason that there was 
no obligation upon the defendant to furnish water to the elevator 
leased by the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's claina is based upon the contention that 
the water was an appuetenance to the leased preniscs and was so 
cont«nplated by the parties »t the ttsae of the leasing. There 
is no mention of \srater in any of the leasee, and for over eight 
years after February 1, 19u3, al] water furnished was paid for 
at the rate of six cents per thousand gallons, pursuant tc the 
letter of ^hat date. The bills were made out upon the basis of 
the water used and payaDents therefor were continued without ref- 
erence tc any new leases which were executed at the expiration 
of prior leases. We cannot see anything in the conduct of the 
parties to indicate thnt the parties intended that the water 
supply should be an appurtenance to the preoiises; rather it was 
treated as an extra, just ne gas and electric power or light, and 
was paid for wholly upon the b«*Bie of a commodity unconnected 
contractually with the lease. This view is emphasized by the 
fact that plaintiff could have obtained the necessary water to 
run this elevator from other sources than the defendant, 

Thomas v. Wiggers , 41 111, 47o, is distinguishable 
from the instant case. Tiiat opinion says the gravamen of the ac- 
tion was not in cutting off the supply of steac, but in cutting 
the pipe which supplied the steam, aome of the other oases cited 
have this same distinguishable feature, namely, acme physical 
Change in the premises held to be included in the lease, in the 


snffo J 

oases touching a supply of a comnjodity there la eyidenoe as to 
an agreement of the parties that such oommodlty should be in- 
cluded in the lease. 

In the case before us tliere was no change in the 
physical conditions and clearly no agreeicent that any water 
supply should be included in the lease. The understanding of 
the parties as to this supply rests solely upon the letter of 
January, 1903, 

Inspection of the letter relating to the srater 
supply shows that there was neither cbligntion of one party to 
furnish nor of the other to tsJce, It only proposes to fix a 
price for th* amount of water furnished and taken. 

An executory contract under seal cannot be modified 
under parole evidence nor any new terms added thereto, ( Becker 
^« Becker , 250 111. 117.) 

A contract lacking in oiutuality cannot be enforced. 
( Winter v. Trainor , 151 III. 191; Clarke v. lotta , i55 111. 163; 
Ulrey ▼. Keith , 257 111. 284.) 

Holding as we do that there was no enforceable con- 
tract between the parties touching the water supply, it follows 
that there is no liability upon the defendant for its failure in 
that respect, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover his damages 
oceaaioned thereby, for the reason above indicated the judgment 
is reversed, and aa there can be no recovery, judgcocnt of nil 
capiat will be entered in this court; costs to be taxed against 

mr/MSKD; jtinrKiwr oy nil ca]^iat . 

89 - 25540 


ok: OTL 3GKAEP2R. %. 

I'l&intifi iny^*ror. ) 

■< . ^ 


216 IX 6Si 



I)«fe/idant ujron trial, 'by the court was found guilty 
aiid lined 4Hj and coets, TVip r.^ture of the informfttion wnd 
charge a^ainet him ie not diaclor-e-l by the ^hstrpet filed in 
thia ccurt. 

Tii-e bll] of excettirrrj or «t<^nograrhlo report has 
hcictufore, upcn motion, been atricJren from the statutory record. 
None of the aasigjiaionta of error relates to «ny part of the rec- 
ord whicxi is t-roperly before us; therefore «e are unable to de- 
ter^xine aa ta the justice of the finding and judgment of the 
trial court, under such circuraatances it will be presaroed that 
the Jud^aent ia correct qn<3 hence it 'sfill be affirmed. 


102 - 25554 

Defendant in 'Error 

JOBS KiaiWALL* ikpl eaded wil^ 
LOUia ABiiHEK, / 

llainti^f in srj^r 

216 IJ\. 63 8 





By this writ of error the defendant, Hemwall, seeks 
the rerersal of an adverse judg/fient in an action of repleTin of 
an automobile. The autooiobile was found in the possession of 
the defendant, Abaher, and taken by the bailiff and delivered to 
the plaintiff, Absher is not here to question the judgment. 

The plaintiff testified that he had loaned to W, C, 
Lurton ^6C0, evidencedby two notes, secured by a chattel mort- 
gage conveying the automobile in question, and that neither of 
the notes nor any part of the same had been paid. The notes and 
the chattel mortgage were introduced in evidence. By the terms 
of the mortgage, upon default in payment of the notes, the mortgagee, 
the plaintiff Tennant, was entitled to immediate possession of 
the automobile. This made out a prima facie case for the plain- 

The only opposition comes from the defendant, 
Hemwall, who did not have the automobile in possession and 
whose interest in the m^^tter does not appear. He sought to 
oppose plaintiff's claim by the attempted introduction of 
certain letters written by lurton vhich, it is said, indicate 
that Lurton was not the owner of the ear at the time he made the 
chattel mortgage. The letters were properly ruled out as in- 


ooapetent. Tlaey could sot affect the rights of plaintiff as 
against the defendant, and even if competent would not prevail 
against the mortgage. In Cuoamin j B v. Holmes , 109 111, 15, it 
was held under similar eircumstnnces that the mortgagee had 
the right of possession as against the mortgagor and creditors, 
whether the mortgage was valid or not, until this right ?»as 
challenged in some mode known to the Iriw. 

It was not error to refuse the propositions of 
law tendered by the defendants. They were not applicable to 
the facts of the case. 

The Judgment was proper upon the evidence and is 




16 - 243# 

f y 

i216I.A. 63i 


Il1|inUff in Err^r, 


\ I ) 0.3? CCiCK COUKTY. 

R oorporatlon, \ / } 

r)efendi%tt In mror, ] 


Cn or about Uvptasiber 1» 1914 • tne dtrfetndant being 

th«n engftged in doing a lif« Ineurftnoft bu»in«ta, 8«nt out by 

s«ll R number of printod elroular letters to prospeotlY* pur* 

ehftsort of insurnnet. Cne of th«oft lett(»r« tma itnnt to ur. John 

?, Duntin of T>»»dwood, 3, !>, A material p«rt of thio letter ie 

at follows: 

"X vrant you tc ae« our ;^clxci@» and exa.T.lne theai 
at our risk. Fill out the appllcRtlon and the policies 
vill bo aent you aubj f^ot to ycur approval « You ne<»d aend 
DC tooney. If tae policy ia not aatlafaotory bo you in 
•rtry respect you can return it to ua without obligation on 
your part, if yoi* want to kee^. ti^e puiioy the firat pay- 
isent will ORrry you to Jan. ii, 1915. * 

This circular letter called attention tc the dan- 

gere of eeptio irifeotion lnc>>rrad by phyaioiana, and it reoittf 

among other tliinga as foil ova : 

"Kov is th« tine to join the Aaacciatlon sinoa 
«• are giving a special induoenent t^^ia month, ^ive diol« 
lara for the accident or tmn dollar^ for the ocAiViinntioa 
policy will carry you through the autusn months nnd half 
of the winter to Jan. H, 1915. • 

aeaie tine before September 21, 1914» the d»»fendant 
received the application flated September 16, 1914» from ur, 
I3U8tin for an accident insurance policy for the aua of $5000 
to be pAid in caae of the death of insured by accident, and on 
8eptakb»r ^l » a policy was issued by defendant and nailed to 
Dr. jjustir., together with « atatement on the printed letter- 
bead of defendant, which «&a aa followa: 

"I^. John Vranoia Dustin* 659 kain street* D«»dwood, 3. D* 
Dr. to Aocidsnt Jolloy No, 9608, first quarterly pvmivm 
$5, ijftnlth policy No, 10197, fir»t quart «»rly pres^iium |5, 
total $1C: $1C p»y« your insuranca t« January ^, 1915, 
per our apeclal offer," 

fha firat paragraph of tha applloation signed by 

Dr. IHiatin is «• foil owe: 

*I hereby make application for mewberahip In the 
Central Bueineae Ken* a Asecointicn* to be based upon the 
following statenent of fnots* whioh X warrant to be true and 
eenp]ete, and ai^ee that th(» application shall not be bind- 
ing upon the Association until accepted bv the Association 
and policy issued thereon." 

Four or fiire days after ^ieptenber 21, 1914, the 

defendant mailed to Bar. Uustin the following letter: 

'*A few days aji;;o we receiTOd your application for 
aesiberehip in this Aasociatiea. Vour appliuaticn was ac« 
eepted and the policy was forwarded to you subject to your 
approval as per our special offer isiade ycu. 

the only obligf*tion ass<iiJGaed by you ij that ycu 
give the policy cnreful oonsioeration, nnd if not satisfne- 
tory return Uie aaae to us. 

If you have examined the pclioy I am sure it has 
pleased you because it covers every disability and iias no 
excerptions or resirioticns. 

It is to v'our advantage to accept the insurance 
Imd BiA)re rejnittBftce at once as per the encloaed s^^aieijent, 
since the sooner your rtismittance is received the more in- 
surance ycu gfft for the first pnym-tit." 

On October 1, 1914, a third letter was mailed by 

defendant to Br, Bustin, a pnrt of which is as follows; 

"Some tine ago we sent you our policy subjeet to 
your approval ^ith the understanding that if satisfactory 
you would remit the first presoium, and that if not satis- 
factory the policy would be returned, 

Since you have not returnpd the policy we feel 
that it must have been satiafnotory, and no doubt you have 
just neglected th* reaittAnoe, The insurarice beccsies ef- 
fective Just as soon as your reeiittance is aitailed, and you 
oannot afford to b»? witiiout prcteotion for a single day, 

»e feel that y»e are entiiled to a decision in 
this matter at once since tiiis in the second letter to 
you, and trust we uuiy receive :your reuit^ance as per en- 
olosed statement," 

This letter infonaed the lK>otor that his insuranoa 
beoaae effective *Just as scon as your reotittanoo is sailed," ete. 

It is admitted that Dr, Dustin met his death in an 
automobile accident on 3epta»ber 27, 1914. It oannot bo detorminoA 

from the record whether defendftnt*s eeeond latter wae ever re- 
ceived by deeeaaed, eltopugh It wee shown that it iraa.not re- 
turned to defendftnt. The third letter referred to aoore was 
oailed three or four days after vr. Due tin's death, hut the eri- 
desoe tends to prove that defendant had no notice of the death 
at the tlime the letter was mailed. The pel ley nvhloa was mailed 
by defendant to Dr. I>ustin wae fcuod in an envelope In hi a desk 
after hla death. No prasiuas were ever paid by ire, Dustin or by 
anybody for hlia on the polloy. At the oloee of all the oTidenoe 
the trial Judge on wotlen of the defend«nt inetructed the Jury to 
return a verdict for defendant, "he Jury did as directed. Judg- 
nent was entered on the verdict and the plaintiff brings the case 
here by appeal. 

The defendant ineiate that no eontraot of insurance 
had ever been entered into between it and deeeaaed; that it had 
never eompleted a contract of insurance witifx deceased, and that 
the policy found in deceased* s desi;; «a8 mdlled to him for ex- 
ai&lnstion and was not to be r^egardsd as expressive of a ooiupleted 
contract until deceased had indicated his acceptance of the policy 
and had paid to defendant a first preniium thereon. The defendant 
refused to pay the loss for the reason tliat it was not liable 
at all upon the policy. This constituted a waiver of its right 
to dSBsand proof of loss. Home Inaursnce Coiajisn^ v, Beyer . 95 
111, 271. 

The controlling facts in the ease are not in dispute. 
The nain question in ccntroversy la whether a binding contract 
had been entered into between defendant and deceased before Sep- 
teaiber 27, 1914. We are inclined to agree with many of the legal 
propoaitiona contended for by counael for plaintiff in support of 
its assertion that a coapleted contract had been entered into be- 
tween defendant and Dr. Sustia at t^ie time of the mailing of the 
Mlioy, and for the purposes of thia case it jsay be assumed that 

tii i-rrs-s 

the Aoceptanoe of an application for .neuranea and ike uncon* 
ditional ln9uane« of a policy oomplataa the contraot, pevina 
"^« F«^d<''»l Llfa Inauranoa Co,, 2fiC 111, 2t)3; that whera an ap- 
plication for ineuranaa haa haen aec«pt«d and a policy iaauad 
thereon end pl»ead in the nails fcr the sola purpoaa of ulti* 
mtaly rcmehing the applicant, a contract of inaumnoe will b« 
regarded aa completed, Ne y 'Yor> ; jife jna , Co, v. B'^tcoeic , 104 
Ga. 67. That where there ia nothing in t}ie contract to the 
contrary, the risk en an insurance }:olicy begina with the date 
of the policy; Bose v, mutual i^ife ir^a , Co.. 240 111, 48; and, 
finally, where the atatua of the partiea beeoiaeB fixed by a oi^a^ 
pleted contract of Insurance the contraot cannot be repudiated, 
altered or ssodified by «ub«equent lettera of one of the partiea 
thereto, Joyce en Inauranee, ;^nd ed., tcI, 1, aec. 62. 

Xt ia inaieted, howttver, on behalf of the defend- 
ant, that the c^ntvaot of inauranee by the agreement and uader- 
standian <>^ ^he partiea thereto, vmn not completed at the tima 
the T'<^liey was mailed to the inaured. In the a--«v>oook eaae 
eupra it ia said: 

"ittiere one party makea a propoeltion to purchsMd a 
thing which ia uncondltioriony accepted by the other, the 
eontrnct of purehaae beccEsea corarlete, "''hwre ia no reaaoa 
ahy the aaeae rule should not be applied when a written ap- 
plication is made for ar. inaurnnce policy,* 

Accepting, then, the atatetaent above quoted aa a 
fairly adequata expreaeion of the law applicable to the facta 
of the inatant oaae, we are to inquire whetiier the prcpoaitioa 
to isaue a policy to daeaaaad had been unconditionally accepted 
by hia. 

The evidence doea not ahow that the preriiun due on 
the policy waa paid prior te the death of deceaaed, nor that he 
had at any tiae eaawsined the policy er had indicated any inten- 
tion to accept it. In other worda, it appeara clearly froja the 

r«oord that «t and prior tc the ti^e of hl« death Dr, Duatin had 
performed no act which would h»T« rendcrod hira liable for the 
paynent of any pr<Niiiiua due on the ; oliey* nor is it ehonm }>y 
the e-videnoe tliat the defendant on it» i^art had indicated any 
Intention or purpoae to walTe its undisputed legal right to 
OlaiJB payment of the presuiufla before the policy was to go into 
effeet. Indeed euoh evldenee as there ia in the record on the 
•ubj«!ct polnte in the opposite direction. 

In the eiroular letter mailed to Dr. Dustin about 
September 1, 1914, the defendant informed hijs that ^'if the poll'- 
ey is not satiefMctory to you in every respect you can return 
it ts ue without obligAtien on vour p«rt. If yovi want to 
keep the policy the first payment will emrry you to January 2, 
191 5, • The language of tnis offer to sell inauranoe ia not 
auabiguotts, and Its plain meaning ie that the defendant stood 
ready to be bound by its offer to insure deoeascnd so aoon as ' 
he had exAtoined the policy laailed to i.iffi and had indicated 
his satief action therewith and had paid the first preis^iua 
which wculd hav© given vitality to the policy until Janunry a, 
1915. none of these conditions was performed by deceased 
prior to his death. 

It is true, as urRsd, that the applieation for 
Insurance nhich was executed by Dr. Uuatin contained tne stipu- 
lation that defenient was not to be bound until the applica- 
tion was accepted by defendant and « policy was issued thereon; 
but this language, in searehln^ for the Intent of the parties, 
should be construed together with their prior or centeasporans- 
ous corrffspondence. The application did not constitute the 
Seaplet«^ contract for inauranoe. A letter wtiieh was mailed by 
-»-*^«j„„v ♦^ *««,.*«M «t tMm aane tiae as the policy contained 

the •tatement* *YouT application was accepted and the policy mm 
forwarded to you subjeet to your approval as p«r our opoclal 
of far vado to you,* The speoiaX offer wao that contained in 
the eiroulttr sent to the defendant, and this was* as we haira 
stated* to the effect that the defendnnt stood r^^adv to oom* 
plete the oontract so aoon as the insured h«d indicated in 90»e 
•anner that he was satisfied with the policy sailed to hir. and 
had paid the preniium due thereon, t^e can find nothing in the 
correspondence of the parties nor in the language in the appli- 
cation nor in the policy which indicated any willingness on the 
part of the defendant to waive its right to the paynent of the 
pr«t)iun due on the policy. 

The declaration filed hy plaintiff did not charge 
thftt the insured had ever paid any pr«eiUB> on the policy and the 
evidence did not disclose that he had accepted it. a verified 
plea cf the general Issue was filed hy the defendant. 

^" Continental life Insurnnce Co . v. Hogers, 119 

111, 474, the Supreme court said: 

*3o in this ease, the plaintiff was bound to over 
end show in her declaration, the ranking of the policy, its 

terms, the r^VBient of thp premium, the dent!* of the aaaured, 
and the piving of notice, and rowklnff proof thereof, to the 
Muspeny. When these sverr-ents h'Jd all been proved, in so far 
fts their proof hnd not been waived or dispenaed witii, a prjaw 
f acie rifrjit of recovery was siade out spnlnst the defendant, ' 
dbdcVx the latter was bound to raeet by some affirsiative ac« 
tion; otherwise the plaintiff was entitled to julg^Hant,* 

In the case of Gitisens' Ins . Cc . i, iielbig , 138 111. 

App. 115. it was held that - 

"The interposition of the verified plea of the gen- 
eral issue oast upon appellee the burden of proving the exe- 
oation« delivery, and acoeptanoe of the policy and tiwt the 
snie was in foToe at the tiae of the fire.* 

There ie, we think, mueti merit in the contention 

that neither the allegations of the deelnration nor the proof 

suhaiitted showed a priwa , _fac ie right of recovery in the plaintiff. 

The policy which was mailed by defendant contained no aeknowledguent 

of ro««lpt of payment of tho pr^iius. Th9 dofondant «»« not 

th«r«for« estoppod en grounds of public pellojr or otLorviao to 

deny th^l Ihe pctmi\m imd boen paid. Tho polley contains tlxe 

r«oitMX that "in considezn^tion of tb« proaniuaa and of th« mur- 

rantios juiade in the application,** «tc. This languags, as wo 

road it, does not amount to an aeknowledi^ont of ttie reeoipt of 

pasnsent of tiie pr«E»iuB. There are oases in the books to the 

•ffeot that the acceptRnce of an application for insuraneo is 

binding upon the Inourer and a ooaspleted contract may result 

therefroip; but th*?se are cases where the ©▼idence showed that 

such was the purpose and intention of the parties to the con- 

trects. put Ti^ere it appears, as it does hwre, th«t the policy 

was not mniled for the sole purT'Ose of reaehln^ the applicant, 

but was aecofflipanled by eenditlens which required aom€ erert 

conduct on the part of the applicant, the contract cannot be 

held to be oomplete until psrformaaca by the applicant of tha 

conditions i/aposed, ?.here a policy of insurance shows upon ita 

face that premiums due thereon bate been paid, an actual failure 

to make such x>ayment oennet be set up as a defense to an aotioa 

on the policy, Illinois central ins. Co, ?. wolf, 37 111, 3bb; 

Provident t.ifg ins. Co. of Chicago ▼. Fennell , 49 111, IS(>; The 

Teutonia life jneurarioe cc , v. Anderson , 77 ill, S84. And wher« 

the express terns of a proposed contract for insurance snowt 

that it is not to be enforceable until examined and fojnDnally 

accepted by an npplioont for Insurance such contract will not 

be cosipleted until its acceptance by auch applicant. 

in Cool oy»s lnour«nce Briefs, vol . 1. P. 429, it is 

said th»«t - 

"It ip evident that if nny act retnains tc be done 
which may be r*»frnrded as giving the arT?lioant an opportunity 
to approve the contract finally offered to Ui», aeoeptanoa 
of the proposal by the insurer does not ooaplete the con- 


It «*« htld in Richer diCiP v. ^. ^. Mutual lit 9 

Ipa . £0,, 143 III. Kpp, 279, that - 

"fhile it i0 tru« R» contended by appellee trut 
poeeesalon of e pel toy of Insurnnoe by the Applicant 
ntisea • pr«8u»ptiori th'st the pel icy hai been delivered 
and accepted, yet euch pre«uaption aay be rebutted by 
•ho wing thot duch epflic^nt «»a peri^itto-d to take the 
policy ssfMTBly for the purpose of exa unin<B' it and detenain- 
ing After »uch exacinnition whether or net he would accept 
i*. Rqultabl^ 3 if e Aoaurmtce re, t. M2ilLL2I» ^^ ^"5^ • ^l^^P* 
462; y. V. jif^e irn. Co. v. g^^'iton , 69 in. App. 479," 

m the o«»e of ntyt Yor k l if e inatirance Cc . t. 

Jaeton, 6S 111, App. 479, noteo had been executed and dellT- 

ered by Batston to an innurer who transferred theot to an inne* 

oent holder. r:astoa uras coapelled to pay the notes and he 

brcu/7^wLt an action agalndt the ineurauce cooipany to recover the 

•mount 80 paid. The notee were givexi in payzK^nt of pretQiuaa 

on policies ^ioh had \)«en mailed to g:&6ton by the insurer. 

The «>Yiuenc« showed, however, th«t the policies were sent to 

P'Hstcn subji^ot. to his ax>proTal upon exaatinntion, he examined 

the policies and notified the ineuranoe coapany that they were 

not satisfactory. In deeidinc the case the Appellate court siUd: 

"At least one infiroity in this position, and a 
fatal inflrffllty too, is that unless the appellee accepted 
the policy no part of it was birjaing: upon him, 

rhe receipt of the policies through the sails 
was but a tender of theBj to appellse for ftccei^tance. 

It cnst upon hlas the duty of ncoeptinR the« or 
of objecting and ma'cing his objection ttno-m to the oospnny,* 

The above authorities and others to which our at- 
tention has been direeted by oounaol for defendant are in di- 
rest surtort of the contention that no coi»pl«ted contract was 
at any time entered into betweeu dt, l>u3tln rxxiA defendant. 
' The minds of the parties had never aet at any time upon one 
•ad the same thinit. Uhlle the lanfiuage of the olrcular letter 
with respect to th« first premium payment did not in exi-licit 
terms require that payment of the premium was to be made at 
the time of the aoceptance of the pel ley, no other weaning can 

a*i aoi' 

r«ssoiiAbly b« derlY«d from the letter. Th# lnngi.i«g« !•, "If 
y©tt want to keep the j^mTkicy ih« fir»t p^va^nt will carry you tp 
iacaumtj 2, 19X5.* thi» ■wm» a •uffiol«nt notie* to the appli* 
eajot tlmt if he Intended ie procure the proteetien furnished 
by the policy he was required to either Aeeept or rejeot it« aild 
in case cf the former tc pay %he pre^^iua due thereon, 

A letter osailed to deceased* • HdJreee three or foiur 
daye after his doath oculd not, of oouree, iieve tlie efXeet of 
■edifying or abrogating the contract; it vbb adi^iaeible in evi- 
dence* we tl^dnk, under the oircisfastanoes, as an ^id in detertaming 
the intent of the parties. Defendant had no knowledge of the 
death of inaured at the time it was isailed, ^nd hence it was not 
selfwservlng in chnraoter. It wns one ef a series of letters* 
which taken together plainly show that the eontraot was net to be 
in force by the aiere receipt and acceptance of the application by 
the defenrtnnt. The material ewidenee in the record is uncontra- 
<3icted and this evidence does not indicate, as uriged, that the 
insurer intended to becone bound on the date of the issuance of 
the policy, nor did the faet that l>r« XJustin did net return the 
pelioy indicate a purpose en his part to retain it. <«hether he 
so intended caunot ue uevertainad fru& the record. 

The trial uudtis did not err in in^truotinK the jury 
to find the isauee for the defendant as the uncontradicted hbA 
unexplained evidence adsiitted on beiJilf cf defendant sliowed t)iat 
ne eontraot of insurance had been entered into between defendant 
•nd deceased, Helai v, Illln oip Cemxaercial ken * s Aaat'ciatlonA 279 
ni. 570. 

the jud^nent of the Superior court is afflr»ed, 


2 • i4B1* 

'•■• 4Q> 

TO 8tiir''RlCK COlllR? OF 

ootJK eoustY. 

nXI-C'^ CAB ftC-WABY, 
A oorporatioiti. 


This i» AD ttp|»Mil by plAintiff ttom m Judgjnent en* 
tor«d in th« Sttpdrior court of Cook County in ui» f»vor and 
again at defendant for th« aiui of |2oc. 

Xt was ohargod in plaintiff* a deolairation and ahovn 
by thtfi «Tidenoo introducod on tlie trial that the plaintiff oua-> 
tainod injuries whila riding aa a paase^^iKRr in n taxi cab operated 
by defendant* Th« evideneo ahowa tb^t the ao<3id«nt ocourrod on 
September Z9, 1916,^ in 31 at straot near ita lnt«raeotion with 
;dtate street in Chicago; thtit the oab in which plaintiff vaa 
riding waa atruok by an autojKOblXa running in a 9outh«rly di- 
rootion on i>tate atreat* fho plaintiff auatainad injjuriea aa 
a result of tha oollieion betwaeii the cara. Tha ^ury which 
tried the onsa rendered a verdict in hi a fnvor for tha auis of 
$aoo. It ia inaiated, firat» that thia verdiot i« groaaly 

The e7ldenoa intra aaead by the plaintiff tended to 
shew that tlce plaintiff mio about SA veara eld at the ti%e of 
the accident, i rior to thia tlaie, in Inarch and April, 1916, and 
a«ain in July, 1916, he had aufferad from ouRlaria and waa treated 
for thia illneaa by Br. Goldberijer, In the year 1904 he auataibad 
a fraoture of a bene of hia l^'ft ankle; thia bone waa ag«ln frac- 
tured in 1906. In 1910 he auatained a gunshot wound in the abdoaiMi 

K.. ^-^ %j 

wnloh nee«B8ltat«d m. aurgionl operation sund whicii, oonriced him 
to « hospital for «lg;ht w««k«* 

It 1» oonoeded tiiat th« •pl»intXtt su8tMin«d oartain 
outt, vrounds and bruiaas about th« haad and t.ody, which ware not 
of a vory oarious eiinraetar. It ia assarted, liowavtr. by tha 
plaintiff that he auatninad a hernia as a result of ths aooidant 
and also thwt h« had boccme, as o oone&quence of tho injuriaa ha 
receiTed, afflicted vith apllapay* :?lth rcfftrenoa to th* all egad 
hernia tha «Tid#not was in direct confliot. Th© rvidanoa ahowa 
that this injury wa* what ia known aa an "inguinal obliqua htsmia.* 
•od tha testiasony of expert witneases eff'^red by elth«r s^da ia, aa 
would be exi?«cted, in direct contradiotion aa tc the cause of thia 
alleged condition, witnaeaes for the dafeuOant testified at lengtii 
touching their reasons for their ^iven opinions that auoh hernia 
could not be proiaicad by a aingle act of violence. 

we are 'wholly irnable frost the record before us to say 
that the evident oonoluaion of the Jury that th« »ll«?ged hernia 
and the alleged epilei)sy were not caused by the accident was 
erroneous. The teatiraony of certain of defendant's witnesses Is 
to the effect that the plaintiff was a sufferer from what is known 
as "nocturnal epilepsy;" that this for® of epilepsy constitutes • 
branch of general epilepsy which ia n»vor oaueed by tra^jusa. Thera 
is soae evidence in the record tending to support the claim that 
the epilepsy might have been the result of etalarial attaolra suf- 
fered by plaintiff before the accident occurred. But wiiRtever the 
cause of thie illness, under the evidence tfie qu^ostlon was properly 
Sttbatitted tc the Jury, and we cannot intrrfere with ita conclusion 
where it apx«^rii, as it does here, that the verdict finds aubatan- 
tial aupport la the evidence; And ao, alao. with referetice to an 
alleged injury aa the reault of the accident to pl*ilntiff»8 ankle. 

The •Tldeno* shows that this ankls had bsen twlee broken before the 
d&tf of th* accident, and vhetner an asserted lifisitatlon of the 
use of this anlclc at the tiiae of the trial vmt caused by the 
prior injuries or the aecideot in question were AAtters for the 
det eminent ion of the Jury. 

Ko reTersible error vas connitted by the trial Judge 
in his rulings on the adaission of sTldence. A certain giTen in- 
struction is caapl {lined of lAiich we think is errcneoua and should 
not hsTe been given to the Jury. This instruction dealt with 
contributory negl iffrence, but as the Terdict of the Jury was in 
fevor of the plaintiff, the giving of the instruction does not 
appear to have* been prejudicif^l to hia. 

In the oase of Arroweffiith t, Bftrtrer, 1S5 111, App. 
142, nn in-^truction in substanee sittilnr tc th? one unier eon* 
sideratlon here wae oosplained of, and the court held with ref- 
erence to an asserted inadequacy of daatagea awarded to plaintiff 
that the instruction did not in any de^^ree influence the Jury in 
deters&lning the aaount of damages assessed against the defendant, 

Ittiile the verdict of the Jury la sttall in view of the 
cnsraeter of the injuries whion it is admitted plaintiff received, 
we dc not think that it is so inadeqwjite as to warrant the belief 
t^iat the Jurors were moved by passion or prejudice. ;^clailk v. 
Jollet ^ Southern Trection Coatpany , 154 111. App, XC6. 

The Jud^ent of the Superior court of cook County 
will be affirmed. 



11*- 24964 

a corporation, 

i'laintiff in Error, 


a corporation. 

Defendant in Error, 


216I-A, 639 

MR, JUSTICE mrm v-sLiTmm thz opiition o? the court. 

■ This is an appeal from a judgment of the County 

coiirt of Cook County in fayor of the defendant. 

The plaintiff charged in its declaration, consisting 

of three count a, that defendant failed to safely and securely 

carry and delivar 396 boxes of lemons from Tustin, California, 

to Syracuse, Mew \orlc; that defendant had failed to carry the 

ahip/aent within a reasonable ticse and that it had been guilty 

of negligence as warehouseman in the care of the shipment after 

its ftrrival at Syracuse, Evidence introduced on the trial tends 

to prove that the Xeinons were in good condition when shipped and 

that they were properly loaded upon a. standard refrigerator 

car of the lacific Fruit Express Co, The shipment left Tustin 

April 2, 1915, and arrived in Syracuse April 13, 1915. 
It is/conteeted question of fr'ct whether the goods 

reached Syracuse within a reasonable time after thpir shipment 
at Tustin. The proof ad-nitted on behalf of the defendant is 
•mply sufficient to support a conclusion that no unreasonable or 
unusual delay occurred in delivering the lejtcnB at cyracuse. The 
etandard refrigerator car in which the leiijons were shipped con- 
tained certain appliances which were used for the purpose of 
protecting perishable goods from a too high or too low temperature. 


The ciiief claim of plaintiff ia that the goods we^e 
dMaa^ed because of fr ceasing while in transit nnd after they ar- 
rived at Syracuse, imder the eridence tnis condition could not 
have occurred at any time prior tc the arrival of the lemons in 
Syraciise, except poasihly on April 12tli, when the texuperature was 
for a part of the day as low as 30 degrees above zero. April 14, 
1915, the day after the goods arrived in ayracuse, the teir.perature 
fell to 26 degrees above zero. There is evidence tiiat for three or 
four days thereafter the goods were in the course of unloading by 
plaintiff's representatives, and whether they became dai&figed at 
this time was a question of fact for the jury. 

A witness for plaintiff testified that he inspected 

the carload of lamons at Syracuse, and that - 

"The car was chilled in the top tier and in the 
Biiddle but cculd not then tell how bndly it was frozen. The 
lemons began to sweat after the car was loaded and we found 
the 1 erf, on 8 in the end of the car when unloaded were frozen." 

Insofax as it ia sought tc charge defendant as ware- 
houseman, the l^w i;:;posed urcn plaintiff the burden of proving 
that defendant had been guilty of seme negligence as such which. 
proximately contributed to cause the daTsages plaintiff complains 
of, and on the evidence we think that whether the plaintiff had 
sufficient proof in this particular and whether on the whole 
evidence the defendant can be said to have been guilty of such 
neglif^ence, were questions for the jury. Gre^g^ v. I l li nois central 
R. R. Co .. 147 111. 550. It ia extremely doubtful, to gay the 
least, that the leraons oould have been froaen prior to their arri- 
val at Syracuse, but whether their frozen condition occurred befor« 
the lemons arrived at Syracuse or whether they became frozen there- 
after while they were in possession of defendant as warehouaejuan, 
were questions which were properly subiaitted by the trial Judge 
to the jury. 

The court refused to give the jury an instruction 



-t'JJia'SOii : .1 

tendered by plaiutiff wJaioJa attempted tc define an act of God aft 
applioacXe to tine faots of the case. ,ve tlxinli: the instruction 
v&s properly refused, i^o defense was made that the foods beoame 
frozen tnrougu an act of God, The defenaea were tLat no anrrason- 
able delay occurred in the shipment of the goods; thK.t the;; had 
not heen exposed to a freezing temperature prior tc arrival 
at Syracuse, and that if the gocds in questlion beoejoe frozen after 
their arrival at this point, then this condition was not caused 
hy any negli^'^ent act of the defendant. The instruction then had 
no place in the case. 

Complaint is made of the giving of an inatiruction 
tendered by the defendant, and it is said in ccnnection there- 
with that the law liaposcd the duty upon defendant not to counter 
balance, but to overooiae, tiie prima facie case cinde V^y defendant. 
In another given xnatruction the Jury were told that the burden 
rested upon the defendant to rebut the presumption v^iich aros« 
from evidence of tue good condition of the fruit at the tiine of 
its a^ilpment and of its daoiaged condition at the plsce of destina- 
tion. «fitien the given instruotiona are read together we do not 
think the jury could have been laialed. The instruction complained 
of is in soKie particulars too favorable to the defendant, but in 
view of the atrengtii of defendant's evidence, so fnr ae it related 
to the duty imposed upon it as a conimon cf^i^rier, we are net prepared 
to say that the giving of the inatructicn constituted reversible 
error , 

To reversible error wps eoineutted by the trial court 
in its rulings on the admiaaion of evidence, A witness vfho had 
never seen the car in question testified generally aa tc t\\(y con- 
struction of standard refrigerator cars similar tc the one in 
which the lemons were shipped. This witness had coiapetent knowl- 
•dga and experience with respect to the subject conoerning which 

he testified, and he did not attempt to describe more than the con- 
struction and purpose of this class of oar. 

Counsel for defendant raade certain rwnArks during 
the course of his argument to the Jury ithich were obj ectionabl'?. 
An objection to these rcrrarks was sustained and they were promptly 
withdrawn. They were not sc inherently offensiT© in character at 
to warrant a reversal of the judgment. 

The judgment of the County court of Cook County Is 



at* iTi X 

13 . 24963 

» corporation, 

lift int iff in Erro]^, 


Ti. \ 

a corporation, ^ 

Defendant in Ti^rcr, 


216 I.A. 63 9 


iPlaintiff 80eks toy writ of error to reverse a ,ju 
entered in the County court of Cook county in favor of the de- 

Plaintiff brought its action to recover damages 
arising from alleged injuries to and deterioration of two ship- 
ments of oranges which were shipped from Hedlands, California, 
to Spokane, Washington, and Detroit, I'ichigan, respectively, in 
January, 1915. The shipments were what were deacrihed at the 
trial as '•tramp shipraents*", which terra, according to the evi- 
dence, signifies that the pn.rtlcnlar shipments were to "be de- 
livered at different places from time to time for the puirpose 
of offering the oranges for aale. 

The declaration filed in the cnuse alleged that on 
January 19, 1915, the parties entered into a conti^ct at Red- 
lands, California, under which the defendant agreed to safely 
convey 396 boxes of oranges within a reasonable time from Ked- 
lauds, California, to Spokane, i/aahington, and also on January 
26, 1915, defendant agreed to safely carry 396 boxes of oranges 
within a reasonable time from Redlands to Feoria, Illinois; that 
the letter shipment was diverted to Detroit, liichigan. 


Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injiiry to the 
orange* caused by alleged negligence on the part of defendant in 
failing to aafely end securely carry theuj, and by its negligence 
as wareliousc&iftn at Spokane, Washington, and Detroit, Michigan, in 
failing to properly care for tne oranges after they arrived at 
their ultimate destination. The verdict of the Jury which tried 
the case vaa in fnvor of the defendant and Judgioent was entered 
upon this verdict. 

The evidence shows that hy reconsignment orders given 
at different pcinta the Spokane shipment, vthich. was originally 
destined to Tracy, California, was diverted tc Portland, bregon; 
Seattle, Washington, and, finally, to Spokane, Washington. The 
Detroit car was destined to Kl Paso, Texas, and was diverted to 
San Antonio, Texas; Fort .forth, Texas; Kansas City, l&issouri; 
Peoria, Illinois, and, finally, to Detroit, iiehigan. The evi- 
dence 3hc.78 that these reconaigriisent orders necesasarily caused 
much delay in delivering ths oranges at opokane and Detroit. The 
bills of lading delivered by defendant expressly exeuipted it from 
liability in respect to any loss, deuuage or delay 8UBt:?ined by the 
shipments while they were held in transit upon request cf the ship- 

There is no doubt in the evidence that the oranges 
irtien finally accepted and delivered at Spokane and Detroit were in 
a deteriorated condition; depreciation of 21 per cent having taken 
place in the Spokane shipment and 50 per cent in the Detroit ship- 
""•nt. In addition to this certain of the boxes which contained the 
oranges shipped to Spokane were broken. The apokane car was held 
at Spokane for at least seven days. There is evidence which tended 
to show that the consignee naiaed in the diversion order to spokans 
oculd not be found by the carrier and that it was unable during 
Wis seven days to deliver the goods to anybody authorized to re- 

■0 SmSiHi 


ceive them and, alao, thAt the Detroit car ima held for al>out 

five dp.ys st Detroit, during which time the shipper's repre- 
sent?' tivee ftiiled to renaove trie oranges from the car. 

The defendant contends that th«» evilence fairly 
8how8 that the deteriorated ocndition of the goods was the re- 
sult of trie delay cauned by the diversion orders which neces- 
sarily compelled the carriers to hold the goods for several 
days during their transit froiii Kedlands to Spokane and Detroit 
respectively, anO during tiae tiaie that the oranges were kspt at 
the latter named points through no fault of the defendarit, 
1-lalntlff^a evidence is to the effect that the orang&e were 
shipped in a good, sound condition st ledlands, and were in a 
damaged condition when delivered tc Its representatives at 
Spokane and Detroit. Evidence was introduced which tended to 
show that the oranges were shipped in cars equipped with cer- 
tain ventilating appliances which were required to be kept open 
n^en the tenaperaturtf outside the oars was above 32 degrees 
above sero and closed when the temperal^ure was below this point. 

Evidence was introduced by defendant whlcn tended 
to prove a complete record of the shipments from the timp they 
left Bedlands, nallfornla, until they reached the poir;t8 of 
final destination and which tended to show that the 'roods dur- 
ing transit i?er« not subjected to teiaperatures which could hava 
amused the deterioration of the oranges. The evidence does dls- 
•lese that the vents on the box cars '.7hloh contained the shlp- 
■ente were open during the time the cars recialned unloaded at 
Spokane and Detroit, and, also, at two or three points on the 
route, when the outside temperature was below 32 degrees abova 
«aro, and, further, that the vents were closed at certain ti'aes 
when the temperature was above this point, but, whether these 
facts did or could cause freezing and decay of the oranges 'ffeve 
disputed questions which were properly left to the Jury. 

^3w tin- 


The evidence also tended to show that the ^oods were 
trariaported by defendaat from plaoe to place on the routes in 
the usual and custoiaary time* and that suoh delays aa occurred 
during tsanalt were the reault ot the reconaignaeni orders 
which were xoade on the request of the shipper* 

It ia insisted for the plaintiff that the verdict 
of the Jury was contrary to the law and the evidence in the 
case. The plaintiff did introduce testljnony which if believed 
"by the jury would warrant a finding that the goods were in sound . 
condition when shipped and if thin were the only question of fact 
in the case we would be Inclined to hold with the plaintiff. The 
record shows, however, a conflict of evidence concerning the his- 
tory of the ship/rents after they left Pedlands, and ne tc vrhat 
caused the admitted deteriorated condition of the oranges. Cer- 
tain evidence introduced for the defencuant would, if believed, 
warrant tJTie oonclu»ion that the condition and appearance of the 
oranges at the points of final destination indicated that 
their decayed condition was not caused by freezing as aseerted 
by plaintiff, but was directly attributable to cver-ripeness 
lAiioh resulted from the delays during their transit. Tha evi- 
dence shows that the reoonaigniaent orders caused a delay dur- 
ing transit of the Spokane shipxiient of at least e glit days 'nd 
of the j>etrnit shipment nearly thirteen days. The defendant 
clBims that these delays were of a oOEiewhat longer period. 

It is asserted by the plaintiff that certain dnjnage 
resulted to t^ie Spokane shipaent by reason of the fact that 
about bC boxes of the oranges were found to be broken and tliat a 
large peroenta^fe of oranges contained therein were in a badly 
decayed condition -srhen they xjere delivered at Spokane . The 
oranges were packed and loaded upon the care at Kedlande by 
the shipper, and plaintiff's eviuence ahowa that it vfas its 


prsctice in 1 oadini; oranges on cars tc fill in unoccupied 
apace in the cara v/ith strips of luiabpr to prevent tTiie boxes 
from ahiftinf? during transit. Tiie evidence doea not diacloae 
wijat causeii thv broken condition of these boxes, Whether the 
decayed condition of the oranges in the brcicen boxes Tras cnuacd 
by the breaking of the boxea, by ovei'-ripenesa or otherwise, were 
questions for the jury. 

It is stDted for the plain-^.iff t?.at tha cars were 
billed out to be sold in transit which necessitated possible di- 
versions to different points and this seems to have been the facte 
If the evidence in fpct did aho-/? that tne goods were in good, 
sound condition when delivered to the carrier and were in an un- 
sound state when they arrived at their final destination, these 
two proven facts would, no doubt, iiave established & j^rime facie 
ease for the plaintiff; but we cannot agree with the contention 
that the record contains no evidence tending to disprove the 
charge that the carriers were guilty of n>^gligence during the 
transit of the goods. The evidence for defeiidant tends to prove 
that the goods were transported with reasonable pronr^r'^s* from 
place to place, aa directed by reconaignia<3nt orders, but that 
certain delays were caused by these orders given nt the request 
of the shipper, and there is sufficient evi lenc«» in the record 
i)&ich tends to support the contention of the defendant that, 
through no fault of itself or connecting carriers, the goods 
were unreasonably delayed at the points of final destination by 
failure on the part of the shipper or ita representatives to 
direct in the one case a delivery cf the gccds to eceic person 
authorized to receive theai and in the other by unrerscnable delay 
In accepting delivery of the goods at Detroit. 

It is not necessary to extend this oj^ir.ion by re- 
ferring to all of the evidence in the record. Part of this 


evidenoe tends to show tJaat deterioration of the fruit mm the re- 
sult of natural cr\mea and tendencies and could be attributed to 
the delays referred to. It is ouA opinion tiiat the record before 
U3 shows that the verdict of the jury and Judijiaerit of the court 
were based upon contested questions of fact as to wuich substantia, 
evidence was introduced to sustain both aides of the controversy. 
It needs no citation of authorities to show that under such cir- 
cujnstnjiceB this court will not disturb the judgjuent of the trial 

It is contended that defendant, the initial carrier, 
is liable to plaintiff not only for the negligence of itself or 
its connecting carriers during the transit of the gocds, but also 
for alleged damage to the crariges t^hich it claiiced was caused by 
negligence on the part of the delivering carrier as warehouseiuan 
while the goods rezoained in its possession at Beticit, We do not 
deen it necessary t* deciae tnis question in the present case. 
Whether the goods becaaie da^aaged by freezing while in poasession 
of the connecting carrier as warehouseman, ana v/nether such dam- 
age was brought about through the negligence of the aelivering 
carrier, or by the asserted unreasonable delay in Uxe unloading 
of the oranges by plaintiff's representatives, were questions of 
fact which were determined by the jury in favor oi the defendant. 
The conclusion of the jury upon this point finds some support in 
the evidence, and it is also a disputed question of lact in the 
case whether the damage tc the oranges was caused by freezing 
while on the tracks at I;etroit or by other causes. 

It is insisted that the ccurt erred in refusing to 
gi-ve Prt ir.otruction tendered by plaintiff which tcld the jury 
thet "an aot cf God is an f:ct c-f nature vhioh requires entire ex- 
olUBicn of liuman agency," etc. We are unable tc find this instruc- 
tion in the abstract of record and no denial ia made in plaintiff's 


if^jiiii&h lu»f 

reply brirf of the assertion mad* by defendaEt that the instruction 
dof^B not appear in the abstract or in tae bill of ex.ceptaons. 
We cannot therefore consider this point, 

?he liudgment of the County court will be affirmed. 


^^„ ' 


32 •> 25i 

THjr invm ocsak jmwspAi'jg? 

CCJ?TAHY, « corporation, for 

u«« of -afiLLiAv R. TTormia, | 
llttititlff in ^rr4T, 


D«f«ndonf in i^ror. 



216I.A. 639 

un, jUiiTics DEVKR iiSi.iVFiiK.; viiv: oiiKioM oif TRF com?T. 

The plaintiff, inter ooean Hovupaper Company, toy 
t(U« vrit of error seekii to reverse « judpaent of the Municipal 
court of cnioago <>>nt«red in fav«r of the defendant, John H, 
Hebertson. The cnee is one of several actions brought by 
oreditors of Chicago I>eal Estate ;ihow OOffipany to charge share- 
holders of that eonpany with individual liability for debts in- 
curred by it on tAie sole ground that it, the Chicago Heal Es- 
tate ^ow coxapi^ny, had failed in eomplianee vith the statute 
law of the State of Illinois to complete its organization by 
filing a certificat*' of its incorporation in the recorder's 
office cf Cook county. 

The questions presented to u« at this time by the 
plaintiff are the same as those decided by this court in the 
case of Kail v. Hobertson , ^li 111, App, 147. April 22, 1911, 
the plaintiff entered Into a contract with the Chicago neal es- 
tate ^how Company, under which plaintiff a^i^reed to ins.ert in a 
newspaper published by it oertaln display advertising tit an 
agreed rate. The sum of $89,63 was paid to plaintiff en the ccn< 
tract and It brought suit to recover a bal»noe of 1^1047. 37 due 
thereon. Robertson in his affidavit of werits asserted that 
the Chicago Real Estate 3how Company was a de facto corporation; 
that it had done business in good faith as a corporation under 

r c^ 

it» charter; th»t the contract was sonide by the corporation and 
not by its shareholders; that plaintiff and two other oredltora 
had the corporation declared bankrupt in a United atates Dis- 
trict court; that plaintiff had filed the elaiu he auea on in 
the present action in the District court; that he procured an aV 
lowanca thereof and thnt he received certain dividends thereon; 
that afterwards on a petition filed by Lake Superior >aper Com- 
pany a receiver was appointed for all of the assets and property 
of plaintiff* and tiiat plnlntiff had assigned all of Ita right 
and title in the present cause of action. 

Kvery i^sportant question presented to us by this 
writ of error wns disposed of In the opinion of vr, Justice 
Holdea in the case of l^ell v, Bobertson , kI^ ni« Apr, 147. 
The h Idings and reasoning in the opinion in that ease are to be 
adopted here as the bc^sis for our ooncliieion that the judgment 
of the trial ooort iliould be reversed. Counsel for defendant in 
their brief say; 

*ln support of tr.e Jud^^ent of the l^uniolpal 
court in tuis c»se we wikl sake the saae points in the 
ssAie order as were isade in our brief and arguisent in the 
Hall case* and in addition taereto call the attention of 
the court to the fact that the inter Ocean f ewspaper Co, 
was wound up by decree of the F<!«deral district court under 
Section 2b of the Corporation Act. Bad mIsc inaiat timt the 
words *aisuBefXient rate 4UiZ^ per line* printed at the bottosa 
of the contract is not a part of the contract,** 

Te do not aean, of course, to hold that the decision 

in the ?'ell case ie res judicat a of the rights of the parties to 

the present suit, but the questions here are almost Identical wiiflx 

those in the ijall case; one of the parties here, the defendant, was 

party defendant In that cass, and whll® we have in the instant 

fast been favored with an elaborate citation of authorities and 

\f able oral and written ar^nisent, we are not oonvincad that the 

decision in the Hall ease vfas erroneous, it was thought by us 


th*t the deolsion Id the HrII case va» In hanaony with the de- 
cision cf the Supreme -court in the c»ae of veg e tal Co . v, 
Robertson , 277 III, 426, in which the Supreree court in ita opinion 
aaid that "if they (the crertitere) failed to bring their notion 
within the time, they atill have their remedy in an appropri- 
ate action agninet the stockholders as partners, in which ease 
the five year statute of llnitHtlons applies," It ia urfced 
here, as it was in the Ball case, eupra , that this statefsent is 
ohiter dictua . It is conceded that en a petition for retiearing 
in the aupre^e court in tue VejBtal , case, .my ra, thet court was 
requested to strike the atatesent above quoted from its opin- 
ion ond that this request was denied. 

The contract which ferxaa the basia of the present 
suit was for 5000 lines of advertising, ""hia contract was in 
writing, hence the ten year statutory limitntion period is ap- 
plicable. The action in the Vesta l case, aupra , vr» based 
upon an ora} contract. !^c att(»tspt was aade to plead or to 
prove an alleged winding up of the plaintiff corporation, nor 
dop8 the record disclose when, if at all, the dissolution of 
plaintiff took place. The action was brouf-ht in the naase of 
the original proraisee and the record, na we read it, falls to 
disclose that its right to bring the action has been loet to 
it by aasigniaent or otherwise. 

Counsel for defendant in error earnestly insist 
that ws should overrule our decision in tne ha l l v, Robertson 
case supra, for the reason that neither the "corporators" nor 
shareholders of a de facto corporation are liable to its 
creditors tdao dealt with the corporation on ita orecJit, and no 
fraud is shown. The entire brief of eounael for plaintiff In 
error is devoted tc a disouaaion of this question, 

BaMeving as we do that the decision in the Hall 


T. Robertson caae sugra is correct, a jud^X'tent will be entered 
here in favor of the plaintiff for the s^jci of ipl 469.7b, ^rhich 
includes the sum of #1047.57 with interest at 5 per cent per 
annum on |980 of above sum from 3/ ay 7, 1911, to Januery 12, 
1920. 8 yenrs, 8 months, 5 days; and bIbc interest at 5 per cent 
per annum on #67.37, the balence of above principal sun:, from 
April 22. 1912, to January 12, 1920, 7 years. 8 aonthp, 21 days. 
The judgment of the Municipal court is reversed and 
judgment entered here in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 

.'3 ftAAO 


80 - 24937 

a corporation. 

Defendant in Hrrorj 

▼s. "■ / 

RAILWAY COliASY, a corj^oration, 
plaintiff in Iftror, 


\ / / 




216 I.A. 639 


In a trial before court and jury plaintiff Jaad a 
verdict and Judgment thereon for |1192,62, from which defendant 
prayed and perfected an appeal to this ccurt, and afterwards when 
the stenographic report was on motion stricken from the record, 
sued out this writ of error. This appeal is numbered in this 
court 24260, and on motion both cases were consolidated for hear- 
ing and were heard and orally argued together. 

Plaintiff's claim is for money damages to a shipment 
of 352 boxes of lemons and 12 half-boxes of lemons. They were 
shipped on defendant's road as the initial carrier in car No, 
6471 in transit from Hew York City to Minneapolis, tinnesota. 
The lemons were, it is averred, in sound condition wnen received 
by defendant June 5, 1913, but that they arrived in Minneapolis 
about June 13th thereafter in a damaged condition and that such 
damage was caused in part by unreasonable delays in transit, neg- 
ligent and rough handling, failure to protect the lemons from 
weather conditions, failure to transport as instructed and to re- 
frigerate the cars in which the lemons were being hauled. 

Defendant argues for reversal principally that the 
amended statement of claim did not state a cause of action; that 
the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that 

fl' P Ti l^ 

IV S3 aiiv— '.-■' 

tJtie Judgment exceeds the £unount claimed in the amended statemmt 
of claim; that the verdict was in form assiimpsit while the process 
was trespass; that it was error to deny the motion of defendant to 
dismiss the case for the failure of plaintiff to file a declara- 
tion within three days after the commencement of the suit; errors 
in the rulings of the court upon the evidence and in refusing to 
give defendant's instruction No, 8, 

The contention that the araended statement of claim 
does not state a cause of action is made in this court for the 
first time, and comes too late unless it can be said that the 
amended statement of claim fails to state any cause of action. 
The points made on this statement are, that it was not alleged 
that defendant was a common carrier for hire, that the lemons 
were delivered to and accepted hy defendant for transportation 
for reward, that the shipment was in interstate comaierce, or 
that plaintiff was the holder of the bill of lading. 

It appears from the averments of the amended state- 
ment of that defendant was a common carrier and was re- 
quired to exercise that care in transporting the lemons which 
the law exacts of common carriers. It does appear that the 
lemons vrere delivered to defendant and the acceptance will be 
presumed from the delivery and the issuance of its bill of lad- 
ing therefor. When plaintiff produced the bill of lading on 
the trial it was apparent that it vms the holder thereof. The 
bill of lading recites that the goods are to be carried from 
New York to i'inneapolis. Prom this fact the court will do no 
violence to judicial discretion in concluding that the shipment 
was interstate within the meaning of the Carmack amendment to 
an act to regulate interstate commerce. We therefore think that 
while all the elements required were not specifically set forth 

ottoirTiia neisfe stxjj 

.^^JUfptt i^&tt9Bml9 iii; 

in the statement, still the amended statement did set forth a 
good cause of aotion, although in some respects it was defeo* 
tively stated. These defects are effectively cured Toy verdict. 
In C. 1. & L. R£, Co_. V. Monarch Lumber Co., 202 111, App. 21, 
it was held that in an action in the Municipal court of Chicago 
oTDJKCtions to the sufficiency of plaintiff's statement of claim 
not made in the trial court cannot he raised for the first time 
on review, since, if defendant thinks the statement insufficient 
he may move for a more specific statement, and, failing to do so, 
impliedly admits the sufficiency of the statesnent. Jackson v. 
Burns, 203 ibid 197, Moreover, the amended statauent of claim 
ivms sufficient to apprise defendent of plaintiff's claim, and in 
this respect fulfilled the requirements of Section 14 of the 
Municipal court act. 

Defendant raises a constitutional question in arguing 
its objection that it was error to deny the motion of defendant to 
dismiss the case for the failure of plaintiff to file a declaration 
within three days after the commencemerit of the auit. The point 
urged is that this being an action of the first class, decxion 28 
of the Municipal Court Act required plaintiff to file its dec- 
laration within throe days after commencing suit, and that in de- 
fault thereof tne suit should be dismissed on motion. The rule 
of the Municipal court msLkiing the practice in first class cases 
conform to that provided by the Act in cases of the fourth class 
is judicial legislation. Without discussing this question, wo 
will content ourselves by saying that which is patent - this court 
is not clothed with authority to decide constitutional questions; 
furthermore, by bringing a cause to thia court for review where a 
constitutional question is involved, such question is, the Supreme 
court of this State has said, waived. 7/e think, however, that it 
has been settled contrary to defendant's contention in israelstam 

B autre J &p>p fcU' in»i«>ie-+r t-j', 


, < .-i . Z- ■ : ;i I r\ ■ 

^' U' §• Cs-a^g^lty Co., 272 111. 161, in City of Chicago v. Col email, 

254 i"bid 336, and Holmea t. Straus , 204 111. App. 307. In the last 

mentiooed c^se this court held in effect that the adoption by the 

Municipal court of Rule 14 .making the pleadings in first class cases 

instituted under tiie Municipal Court Act the same as tliose in fourtli 

class cases, aholishes practically every difference that existed 

formerly in the practice and procedure in that court between these 

two classes of cases. 

It is true the judgment exceeds the amount claimed 

by the pleading, Shis is accounted for by the statement in the 

verdict thet there was included therein interest at five per cent 

upcr the amount of ths claim. It was proper to pillow interest. 

A case very similer in principle is Chie holm v. First Naticna] 

Bank, 190 111. App. 354, where the court said: 

"It is also contended that the trial court erred in 
rendering judgment on the verdict for |10,718,50 when the dam- 
ages clained in the declaration are $10,000. The appellant has 
waived all errors in that regard by not having raised any ques- 
tion ooncernin^:^ it in the trial court. Thnt question may not 
be first raised in an Appellate court. Wheatley , Buck & Co. 
V. Chicago Tr us t . f.~. S aving s Bank , 167 1 11. 480 ; Iies_t^"^v . ^omas, 
218 111. 246." ~ Kewane'e Nat'l Bank v. jadd , ll'b iTl. AppTTST. 

This question is initially raised in this court. It 
is too late. 

The contention that the verdict is in form assumpsit, 
while the process is in form trespass, is, we think, of no conse- 
quence on review. It ccmes too late when made here for the first 
time. At the most it is hignly technical, for the juagment, whether 
in form of asstimpsit or trespass, is of the same purport and in 
either form the rights of defendant in no way changed to its nurt. 
If this is an irregularity it is one cured by verdict. 

Plaintiff proceeds upon the theory that defendant 
was derelict in its duty to transport the lemons witi- due care, 
in that the shipment was unreasonably delayed in transit, that 


, *R»rts 



■ ii.4 X O 

.^inojFi: .i.iisnotaoiau Br xiIb yri." 

there was failure to protect the shipment agalJist the eletnenta be-> 
cauBtt proper refrigeration vas lacking, and that the leraons were 
unskilfully packed and in failing to deliver the shipment in a 
sound and merchantable condition. 

After a perusal of the evidence in tnis record, we 
think that the pertinent and admissible testimony therein sustains 
these contentions, from which the jury and the court were justified 
in concluding that plaintiff had made out its case as alleged, emd 
such evidence, in our opinion, sustains the judgment. 

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to prove 
that the lemons were in good condition when received by the de- 
fendant railroad for shipment. 

Plaintiff offered the bill of lading in evidence, 
which recites that the goods were received in good order and con- 
dition except as otherwise noted, and we find no notation of any 
part of tne shipment being in bad order or condition, so this re- 
cital in the bill of lading was sufficient priraa facie proof of 
that fact; and we find no evidence in the record rebutting such 
recitation in the bill of lading. We think the evidence cf plain- 
tiff as a whole sustains the claim that the damage was suffered 
in transit , owing to defendant's actionable negligence, to the 
amount of the claim, and that under the Cairmack amendment supra 
defendant iras liable as the initial carrier for all damages occa- 
sioned by any negligence during the whole of the journey and ijntil 
Minneapolis, the destination of the shipment, was reached. 

The argument as to freight rates is impotent to de- 
feat the express contract of defendant for carriage from Kew York 
to Minneapolis, 

On the arrival of the lemons in bad condition plain- 
tiff used all rv^aacnable means to miniiflize the leas, su^h aa ex- 
gaining the lemons, sorting out the good from the bad and repackiig 




.t9nnx&tt9b mat ^eiioti- 

00 'iSS .' 

'C-:,'Si Dii^- &UC 

them. :Chi3 wea all the law required plaintiff to do. 

The court- gave 29 instructiona to the jury, nnd it 
is insisted that the court erred in refusing to give instruction 
8 proffered by defendant. 

We think that aaide from instruction 8 the jury waa 
sufficiently instructed upon every material point necessary to 
its decision. Moreover, we think instruction 8 clearly errone- 
ous, as it in effect told the jury that if the ngcnt of plain- 
tiff consented to the lemons being packed in one car, and with 
such knowledge accepted the bill of lading, plaintiff could not 
he heard to coaiplain. This is not the law as applied to the 
facts in tills case. In Wasnington Hors e Exchange v, L. & £. 
R. R. Co ., 87 S, E. Hep. 941, it was held that, "Though a shipper 
examined and deemed a car sufficient for the transportation of 
horses, the railroad comparty is not relieved from liability for 
defects in the cer.!' 

We further think that the danxpges were assessed upon 
a coiTect theory regarding defendant's liability. 

The judgment in appeal caae 24260 is this day af- 
firaied for the reasons that the stenographic report was stricken 
froni the record and that no reversible error appears in the statu- 
tory record. Under these circum3t8nceB,the judgment in the appeal 
case teing affirmed, defendant may not have any right of further 
review by this writ of error. However, we have accarded defendant 
the benefit of the doubt on this point existing in our ainoa by 
reviewing the errors assigned in tnis v.'rit of error case. 

Perceiving no reversible error in the record, tne 
judgment of the Municipal court is affirmed. 


fl<1 T f 

lUJ".:,.,. -jKij-u.;, tl: 

c^^ii^i. e«;f>' 

aw 'Hi J 

8^- 24260 

a corporation. 







\ / 


216I.A. 640 


The stenographic report has heen stricken from the 
record in this case. This leaves the statutory record only be- 
fore us for review. Errors thereon assigned have been considered 
and disposed of in an opinion coincidentally filed with this in a 
writ of error sued out to review the same judgment in case gen- 
eral number 24937. 

There being no reversible error in the record re- 
viewable on this appeal, the jud^ent of the launicipal court is 



A k\ 

O^i) .A.I 8 If 


8 - 24941 


Defendant in ErroJ 


ROSE PIKOWSKY, Administratrix 

of the Estate of Herman Bilcowsky, 


deceased, 91f?T/\. ^^40 

Plaintiff in Error. ) A» X \>' i- •^^^ t? w 


On the verdict of a jury plaintiff had judgment 
against defendant's intestate for $251,25 nnd the administratrix 
of the estate sued out this writ of error in an effort to have 
the judgment reversed. 

The deceased, Herman Piko\7sky, sold plaintiff a 
ticket for the passage of his wife and children from Russia to 
Chicago. After forwarding such ticket to Russia and giving 
plaintiff a receipt for the passage money, Pikowsky, without the 
consent of plaintiff, procured the ticket to be cancelled, re- 
ceiving from the steamship company the passage money paid hy 
plaintiff, which he kept and did not repay to plaintiff. The 
transportation was bought from the Russian-American Line by 
Herman pikowsky. The transaction was made through one Benjaanin 
Pishman. Pishman about this time gave Pikowsky a ninety day 
note. When the note matured Pishman gave Pikowsky a check for 
the amount of the note, which was returned unpaid and marked, 
"Not sufficient funds." pishman subsequently went into bankruptcy 
and likowsky filed a claim for the amount due on the check against 
the bankrupt estate of Pishman and received thereout a dividend on 
the amount of his claim, the same as did other creditors. plain- 
tiff first paid Pishman $100 on account of the coat of the ticket 
and subsequently went with Pishman to Pikowsky, where the balance 
of the money due Pikowsky for the transportation was by plaintiff 


given to Pishman and "by J'iBhman paid to Pikowsky in the presence 
of plaintiff; thereupon Pikowsky handed plaintiff the receipt for 
the passage money, saying to hiw, "You go home, and your family 
come about a couple of weeks here in Chicago.*' Furthermore, 
Piehman testified that he paid Pikowsky for plaintiff's tickets 
and that the check given to likowsky which was not paid was given 
for "other merchandise,* 

The jury and the trial Judge might well believe from 
■febte evidence that the foregoing facts were proven. Under these 
facts plaintiff could maintain an action against Herman pikowsky 
for the amount of the judgment as being money had and received 
from the Russian-American Line for his use at the time he caused 
said Line to cancel the transportation ticket and received from 
it the money which plaintiff had theretofore paid for the ticket. 

This being an action of the fourth class in the Muni- 
cipal court, the form of the action is immaterial.; the action is 
whatever the evidence makes it, whether in tort or assumpsit. 
Sclr^iultg V. Ericsson , 182 111. App. 487; Bdgerton v. C. R. I.. & P. 
Ry. Co., 240 111, 311. 

In the circiim stances of this case we do not think 
the question as to whose agent Herman pikowsky was in the trans- 
action is of any importance. He had money which in right and 
justice belonged to plaintiff and which he received from the ateamr 
ship company when the transportation was cancelled, for which 
transportation plaintiff originally paid Pikowsky. That plain- 
tiff paid the money to Pikowsky appears aside from the oral tes- 
timony of plaintiff from Pikowsky' s receipt therefor found in 
the record. 

The facts in this record demonstrate that the judg- 
ment does justice between the parties. Under these circumstances 
such a judgment should not be reversed for any technical error of 

vXimelt . , :>m »TijR*!©a/^ »r(.. 

fisvig £«v. fttiS htm 


oO ,T 

^ > V ;;- .-, . -f jj .J 2 J ,, ijl^ R© oJb 

procedure, yinc ii v. Wisconsin Dairy yarma Co., 167 111. App. 400, 

Section 23 of the Mtxnicipal Court Act prcvideB that 
this court shall not reverse the judgment of the itunicipal court 
unless it "shall te satisfied that the judgment is contrary to the 
law and the evidence or that the judgment resulted from substantial 
errors directly affecting the matters at issue between the parties,' 
Judd V. Faris . 162 111. App. 600; Hamilton v. Tut tie , 157 ibid 345. 

The judgment is not contrary to the law or the evi- 
dence; nor is it the result of any substantial errors of the trial 
court directly affecting the matters at issue between the plain- 
tiff and Herman Pikowsky; therefore the judgment of the Municipal 
court is affirmed. 





aVH Bi: 


36 -.25271 / / ' / 

JOHK DEMAS, / ) \ 

Defendant in #rror, ) V 

/ f ) ^U / I 




Plaintiff in Error. ) ^iQl*-^* 640 


On the fourth trial before court and jury plaintiff 
had a vprdict and a judgnjent thereon for $405,90, and defendant 
■eeks a reyiew of the record by writ of error. Plaintiff has 
failed to appear and defend againat tne writ. 

There are a nujaber of reasons why the judgment of 
the trial court ia fraught with error. In the first plaoe, it 
was not properly upon the short cause calendar, where it was 
placed in violation of 3ec. 27, chap, 110, R. 3,, in that the 
ten days previous notice there required was not given. Statutory 
rights cannot be divested by rules of court. However, that the 
cause took more than the statutory time to try would be no reason 
for reversing the judgment, as the trial Judge might, in the exer- 
cise of a sound discretion, continue the hearing of the cause un- 
til completed even efter the lapse of the statutory hour. 

There are also many erroneous rulings of the court in 
the admission and exclusion of evidence. Korecver, there is an 
incurable defect in the stateinent of claim, in that it does not 
state a cause of action. This may be availed of after verdict, 
which is not a curative. A cause of action defectively stated 
is cured by a verdict, but a declaration or statanent of claim 
which fails to state a cause of action is not only not cured by 
verdict but is open to attack in a court of review. 

- 'tiioc: 

The statement of cl»iffi is abetraoted thu0: 

**« The atateraent of claim atatea that plaintiff expended 
$405 ,90, at the instance and re<?ueat of defendant, for the hoa;i- 
tal bills and funeral exTpensee and bill and on account and for 
the death of her husband.**" 

This does not state a cause of action, because defendant 
was not prifliarily liable for hospital bills, funeral expenses or 
other accounts of the deceased husband, as many of the debts as 
were contracted by the husband in his lif etise were his debts and 
not those of his wife, the defendant. The funeral expenses would 
be a charge upon his estate, and it is reasonably inferable from 
the evidence that deceased had an estate somewhere in Greece. 

Furthermore, there is no averment of « promlsa on the 
part of defendant to repay plaintiff for money advanced to defend- 
ant's husband. Had such a promise beer averred, a plea of the 
statute of frauds that the premise was one, not in writing, to pay 
the debts of another would have been a good defense. In Bowiiian v. 
People , 114 111. 474, it is said: 

"The rule is, if the declaration omits tc all ge any 
substantial fact which is essential to a right of action, and 
which is not implied in or inferable from the findings of those 
which are alleged, a verdict for the plaintiff does not cure the 

Foster v. St. Lake's Hospital , 191 Ibid 94; Kc Andrews v. C. |j_, 3_. §t 

1. Rj^. Co., d'dZ ibid ;i32; ftuincy Coal Co . v. Hood , 77 ibid 68. 

Again plaintiff proceeded in his pleading upon the 
theory of an Implied promise to pay the money advsmced and on the 
trial proved an expressed promise to reimburse, thereby ma^cing the 
case by the pleading an entirely different one by his proofs. 

It is an elementary principle of law that the al 1 egata 
»nd probata must be in accord. 

It appears from plaintiff's testimony that he paid the 
undertaker $225.65 pnd that the undertaker had heard a conversation 
between the parties to this suit, in which the defendant promised to 

repay plaintiff. Counsel for defendant att»tipted in his closing 
argument to coiument upon the fact tliat the undertaker was not 
produced as a witness to substantiate suoh statement by plaintiff, 
but the trial Judge sustained an objection to such argument. 
This was erroneous. In the condition of the ©Tidence, there be- 
ing no attempt to excuse the non-pro due tioa of the undertaker as 
a witness, counsel might well ooounent upon suoh failure as bearing 
upon the credibility of the eridence of plaintiff as to the oon> 
versation which he testified the undertaker heard between plain- 
tiff and defendant regarding repayment. 

As plaintiff is not entitled under uis statement of 
claim to recover in this action, the Jud^Jinent of the li^unicipal 
court is reversed and the cause will not be remanded. 


;auael ; 


)0^ i«€i 




53 - 25293 fT"^ / I If "7 

[Cf /d,j 

) \, 


vs. / I OF CHICAGO. 

ANNA N. KENDALL. i 216 1 • Ao S 4 

Plaintiff in Error. ) '^ 


This cause is before us for the second time. (See 
Delfosse v. Kendall, 205 111. App. 314.) The Supreme Court on 
further review (see 283 111. 301) reversed the judgments of 
this and the trial court and remanded the cause to the Municipal 
court for a new trial. 

The details of the cause of action fully appear in 
283 111, 301, aupxa, to which we refer without c\jmloering this 
opinion with a repetition thereof. 

The Supreme court differed from this court in hold- 
ing that the trial Judge should have granted defendant's motion 
to file an amended affidavit of meritorious defense and directed 
that the court allow the motion and permit such amended affidavit 
to be filed. This was done and a trial before court and jury re- 
sulted m a verdict and judgment for $1575, the principal of the 
note in suit, and defendant again brings the record to this coxart 
for review. 

The note is one payable to maker and endorsed and 
delivered by her. 

The amended affidavit of merits alleges in substance 
that the writing, "Anna H, Kendall" appearing upon the note in 
suit was obtained from her by false representations and a trick 
and artifice practiced upon her by one Henry H. Thomas. The 
trick consisted in Thomas informing her, after her refusal to sign 

'TTIr;-- .f^.^^ 

^ i i S 



a note for |1575, that tJie note whicli she did sign, namely the 
one in suit, was for |&00 and tiiat by a trick he concealed with 
his hand the note which she signed, and that she signed the 
note for |1575 in tlie belief that it was one for $500. 

The principal points urged for reversal relate to 
the admission of the note in evidence without proof of the sev- 
eral endorseirients thereon, that the fraud proven by the testimony 
of defendant bars recovery, and that the judgment is not supported 
by the evidence, 

Shoxiid we concede that the amended affidavit of 
merits operated as a plea of non est factum , thus putting plain- 
tiff to the proof of the genuineness of the signature of the 
maker of the note, the defendant, the burthen thus imposed was 
fvilly met when defendant testified as a witness for plaintiff 
that the handwriting on the note, referring to her signature, 
was hers. Furthermore, the amended affidavit of merits does not 
deny the genuineness of defendant's signature to the note, but 
on the contrary avers that the note was ob tained by trick and 
artifice resorted to by one Thomas, at whose instance she executed 
the note. The endorsements on the note were not denied by any 
plea or affidavit made by or for or on behalf of defendant. It 
was therefore unnecessary to prove such endorsements. This case 
is not comparable on this point to Glickauf , administrator, v. 
this defendant, 213 111, App,, 678,vdiere it appeared that the 
genuineness of the endorsement was denied by an affidavit of 
merits, making it inciimbent upon plaintiff to prove it, Nor was 
it necessary to prove the delivery of the note. Such delivery 
will be presumed from the fact of possession. 

Section 16 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is ap- 
plicable in solving this question where it reads: 

■♦ * Where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in 
due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to 

MTii a 


iui no 9£(iBi.y' 



him, 80 as to maJce them liable to him, is oonclusively pre- 
sxuned. And where the instrument is no longer in the possess- 
ion of the party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and 
intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary 
is proven." 

In Woltzen v. Wieman , 168 III. App, ZHO, there was no 

proof of the delivery of the note in suit, and in answering the 

arguments put forward for reversal on this ground the court said: 

"Appellee introduced a number of witnesses, who tes- 
tified that the signature to tht«- note was in the genuine 
handwriting of the deceased, and then offered the note. The 
note was in the possession of appellee and therefrom a delivery 
was presumed, and it was expressed to be for value received, 
which was sufficient proof of consideration, and a prima facie 
case was thereby made for appellee," Merrill v, Merrill , 1^7 
ibid 589. 

Section 26 of the act su p r a defines a holder for 

value thus: "When value has at any time been given for the ~ 

instrument the holder is deemed a holder for value in respect 

to all parties who became such prior to that time," 1»hile 

plaintiff might have rested in the security of this statutory 

presxanption, he proved the actual consideration paid for the 

less than 
note, vrhich he discounted and paid for at/its face value. 

However, it is apparent from the litigation regarding defendant's 
notes which has passed througin. this court, that the discount was 
none too great for the risk of ultimate collection thereby as- 
sumed. Adol phus V. Kendall , 305 111, App. 316; Glickauf , Admr. 
'^' Kendall , 213 ibid 678. In the condition of the record, the 
amount which plaintiff paid for the note in no way affects the 
merits of defendant's defense. 

The question of fraud in obtaining the note was one 
for the jury to determine from all the facta before them. The 
law required defendant to be reasonably diligent and circumspect 
in the transaction and not to be guilty of culpable negligence or 
a want of reasonable care and diligence with respect to the execu- 
tion of the note. Commercial state Bank v. Judy , 133 ibid 35; 
Murray v. Metropolitan ? . & S. Bank , 159 ibid 473. 

-!-i.''- ' on ai 

©17. asm QiQiii ... , ■'** .v a&&S 

T84, , . . .3u.eo 

... bxrft 

•'Tr'f (?»•»" 

, uj e yrffasfta. 

r\ J «^ f y 


Defendant 'B cwn testiiriony showed a lack of care or 
diligence in the matter of the signing of the note. She made no 
atteapt to read it, according to her own statement, and signed it 
on a desk cluttered with papers; the covering of the note "by 
Thomas the jury might well have believed was made necessary by 
such disorderly condition of the papers on the desk at the time 
of the signing of the note. 

In not reading the note defendant was guilty of such 
a lack of diligence and circumspection as in itself would be suf- 
ficient to make ineffective the defense of fraud and trickery 
set up, for in order to avail of such a defense it was absolutely 
es8en«:ial for defendant to prove herself to have been in the exer- 
cise of prudence and diligence and to have in no way negligently 
contributed to the imposition. She attempts to excuse herself 
for her lack of diligence in the matter on the plea that she was 
in a hurry to catch a train. Such excuses are not cognizable 
in courts of law. 

The jury had the right to take into consideration in 
determining the question of fraud the fact that her testimony and 
her amended affidavit were in conflict. They might further have 
taken into consideration the fact, testified to by defendant, 
that she was engaged in making notes with a Mr. H. H. Thomas "to 
be used for bookkeeping purposes only, and that they would never 
be used or put on the market in any way." She further testified 
that she executed four of such notes totaling the not inconsider- 
able sum of $5,000, as well as other notes of a like character. 

We think the jury were amply justified in finding 
against defendant upon/fraud issue. 

Defendant asks this court to add interest to the 

judgment according to the terms of the note in suit. Jailing 

cross errors, we arc impotent to vary in any way the judgment in 

?^br:'y etiit 

%tt ©;roc 




favor of plaintiff. 

Seeing no reason why tJae jud^Hient of the l.unicipal 
coort should be reversed, it is wff iriiied, 


62 « 2'^332 


▼•. \ 

It, DSBCKR CO., \ 

nal|»tiff if irror. 




16I.A. 64i 


th« bill in this ci^stt ia prlM»rily a bill to enforo* 
the specific p«rforM«nc* of a eontract for a lenee and to eoapol 
4«fendBnt to execute a written leaee in aooord with the oontraot, 
for an injun^ tion perwaxiently refttrainlng defendant froA proee« 
outing « forcible detainer luit pendias in the kunlcipal court 
af,ainot complainant* and for a noney decree awardinig; oootplainant 
sueh dasTjagee aa it suffered by reason of defendant** breach of 
its oontraet to make certain repairs upon the pret^iiaes to be de- 
mised, «to. 

?h« bill was answered nnd the cause referred to a 
Bester to take proofs and report his findlnj^s of l»w and fact. 
The master aftrrr takinfs the proofs rendered his report, reccci- 
Bending a decree in «ecord with the prayer of the bill, defend- 
ant filed objections to the mnster's report, ^>hiek were oTcrruled, 
The ehnnceller confirmed the aast«r*a report and entered a deoi^a* 
thereon, froat whioii defendant prosecutes this writ of error, KO 
exceptions to the ffia8ter*s report vers filed before the chancellor . 

The bill averred inter alia that complainant was en- 
gaged in manufacturing woodwork, using a large aaount of machinery; 
that pursuant to negotiations a contract was <ait«red into between 
the parties, wliich proTided i nter alia that coiitplainant agreed t* 
lease and defendant agreed to let certain practises in Chicago for 

seeas - 

•^ :P 

OMnufaotuTlng Furpoji«» for firm ysars frtm K«y 1, 1914, at an 
•nnual rental of ?3,0C(f, po8»«««ion to be tU^w* Earch 20, 1914, 
without the paynent of ront until }xay 1, 1914, defendant to saka 
certain repairs •p«ci.fied in the eontraet; tlxat the contraet prb- 
Tided for a written leaaa on a certain forx; that after Varoh :24th 
complainant paid tha lesaor'a agent ^250 for .'«ay 1914 rent; that 
cofflplaine.nt did not get pessoesion of the premiseo until April 
10, 1914, «7hen numcroue porticna of tiie preai^ee «ere not in re- 
pair; that defendant failed to coinply with its agreement to repair 
and clean the premieea; that beemse of eucn failure complainant 
on April 13th placed a foroa of Inborere on the pre;aisflt and did 
the cleaning and repairing ivhich defendant had proiriiBed by its 
eontraet to do; that about April 1, 1914, defendant presented a 
written lease, signed by it, and rftouested coreplainant to execute 
the satae, whlcn it refused tc do b<^Buse the lease contained a 
ooTennnt th»t the premises nere in good repair; that eoaplainant 
was ooapelled to expend about $800 in repairing the prwsises and 
lost approxlnately ^2,000 throuf^ the failure of defendant to make 
sueh repairs; tliat defendant on June 20, 1914, caused to be served 
upon complainant a five day notice, demanding 4^^50, and notified 
oomplaintuit tnat if that sub was not paid within said five days 
its rig.;ts in the premises would be terminated; that en June 20, 
1914, defendant started a forcible entry and detainer suit in the 
Municipal court tc dispossess aoaplainant of the preinises set forth 
in the contract for a five year l^sase; th^t oompleinsnt expended 
more than $5,000 in moving into the premises; that as the renting 
season had passad complainant was unable to obtain suitable preoii* 
see and in eensequenoa would sustain irreparable less and injury 
if disrossessed by having its business interfered with If oom- 
pelled to seek other premises; that said premises wars heavily 
enoviaberad; that defendant had no means, assets or property and 

oeald not rrspond in duangra for br(>»&eh of contract in a prooeed* 
ing at law; tlmt In »n effort te A70id its contract to l«ast« da- 
fandant inatitutad and la prcaeoutlng tha forcible detainer pro- 
ea^ding aforeeaid; that oonploinFnt t«ndcr« tha $25(3 dastandad in 
the notice with any othar pajmaents thf»t amy accrue and alee a bond 
for the paywent of rant, axpengae, etc., that may accrue to de- 
fendant, ^nd i« willinp to ftojtiply with %nyr other tsrapa iotpotted by 
th** court, so thftt cwnplRinent and defendant rray both be protaoled 
in th^ir righte; praye that defendajnt be required to answer; tliat a 
tersporary injunction be entered reetT^lning a further prosoeutioa in 
the ttunlclp&I court of the forcible detainer euit, and also rtistrala* 
In^j the defendant frea interfering, with the poeseesioa by eottplaia* 
ant of the praiaiaea; that defendant b<* required to enter into a laaae 
in accordance with thf; contract «jnd to fully and specifically per- 
form the aasje; that th«»re be an »llownnce for all cxFons^^a, lose and 
damage eustained through the neglect of def*'ndant to perform its pert 
of the onntract for a lease, mnd that the amount found due coffiplainan 
be decreed to be p«ld to it ©r applied against the rent wiiieh may 
accrue to defendant* 

It ie contended that the bill in net aupi:orted by 
the eviaenoe ir: thP record, 

■nafendant <?cee not dispute the force and effect of 
the proofs, and therefore hae not abstraoted the same or any 
part thereof. The errors argued are «Bbraced in the contention 
tiiat ti court of equity had no Juri»diotion because oojsplainant 
luid a complete and adequate reicedy at law. 

The contention uiat the bill did not state a caaa 
aegnisable in equity is made in tills court for the first tiiue. 
The bill was not demurred to nor wrss the equitable Juriisdiction 
of the court challenged by any ayenaent in the answer. Further- 
more, no auoh objeetlan was sukda at any of the ssTsral hearings 

befcr« the i&a»t«r or ii|»on th« final iiearing b«sfor« th« aii«tne«llor, 

Th« sp«ciflG fi^rt QVs&Hnce of a eontraoi can only be 
obtained by reaortiag to the equity branoh of the ccurt« llo auoJa 
action ia cognisable at eoiaiaen law; t/ierefcre, mm i^o ihid portion 
of the bill a court of equity had Jurisdietion. 

Restraining the proa«cutien of Lhe forcible en* 
try and d«»t»iner euit vas but ancillary to the relief sought for 
the epf^cifio perf enhance of the contract for a lease, ae likeviee 
tme the prayer for the aeseaement of danages >xhioii onmrlninunt 
had suffered by defendant's breach of its I ^ase contract. 

It Is axiomatic that nhen a court of equity obtains 
Jurisdiction of a oiKuse for one ipttr' ose it will procest'* to do co»« 
plete Justice between the parties upon equitable principles as 
affecting the subject a?.atter of the litifration. Complainant 
averred and prcved that it could have no adequate relief at law 
•gainst defendant for ite daiDa|i;es, because defendant vas fi» 
nanoinlly irresponsible and could not be ssnde to resrond in 
dasnages in a suit at lav. It is tat^refore (^uite olear that com- 
j^lainant stated a case by its bill tg^ich entitled it to relief 
in n court of equity for the grieTanoes set forth in the bill 
and alleged against defendant. 

Tmfendant argues with amch force that equity cannot 
enjoin the prosecution of a suit at lav in forcible entry and 
detainer. T» this contention ve are unable to yield our asaent. 
It on 8 on V, Bragden , 159 ill. 61. is authority contrary to suoh 
contention. In the Mo ng on case the court held that if complain- 
ant had a complete remedy at lav, the objection to be availed of 
should have been set up by way of demurrer cr anaver to the bill, 
vhich vyas net done; the opinion then j^rooeeds thus: 

*We «r« of the opinion, th»?r«fore, thut the 3up«rior 
court erred in dismlsainR th« bill and disaolYing the lnJiino« 
tton» una ahouTd hR-»e «mter«d ita deores in conformity »rith 
the pr»y«r toy ordtring a oonveyanoe of the property upon cok* 
pllanee toy ' onson wit^i the terwa of the contract, nnd perpetu- 
»] I J enjoining the prosecution of th?» notion of forcible entry 
and detnlrpr," 

In the stMte ef thf» reeord we mu»t n-n^umt! that the 

proof* estatolieh the fnot that ccB»pl»inant 'erould auffsr irrepera^l^ 

injury unleBB given th« relief soufht by Its Y>il1 snd thi»t its 

reredy ftt law «at inade(|U!!>te. jncy.Rc n v, X» ££,• "''. A. i^ S- II 1 . 

Yel . Co.. 100 III, Ai-'p, fiaSj Cwrieon v. Koerner , 226 III, lb; 

!• JE- !• ££• ^» £• ii« !• ££.» ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^. 

The failure of defendant to ch«llenge the jurledie* 

tion of the court to grant the relief prayed, in Ite pleading 

bririKB the case within the rule announced in Cra,<'yfo rd t. 3ohmit », 

139 ill. 566, where the oourt held: 

"The rule is thstt where a def«n>l*nt thus nppeara mid 
▼c1UF!tf>rily aubaite hifueelf to the jurladiction of a oourt of 
chanoery, th* court may, if it eeet proper, prooe»?d to grant 
relief, notwi tii9^f>n»Ung there rsay be an sdeqiuate nnd eoisplete 
remedy at la^, if the relief Bought la not of nucii onr>r''Cter 
as to be v»holly foreign to chancery jurisdiction. • :itpu t ». 
Coojc . 41 III. 447. 

The otojfiotlon to the juriediotion of ths court mnda 
by defendant by way of objeotlon to th<^ isnater'a report oame too 
late, ss, by Jiniawerinf;, it hr'd already eubmitted itnelf to the 
ocurt'e Jurisdiction. 

For the foregoing rsaecnu the deer©*' of the iJuperior 
oourt ie affinsed. 

^'J I 

/ / / / / 

020 - S94T8 

/ / A7 ■ :■• 

I y 

/ ) 


11 m PfflTIOT ^? CHARiieS A. ) 

WHltl, ) 

\ / Afp«ii«», ) 

i / > 

JOHir L. Hi^ILTOS, A. \L UPTL, ) 


Apj tllaiitA. ) 

of th« Court. 

^Ui qu4i»«ioa to ba di«8ld«4 Is wlaeth*? ^« Awnurrey 
filed to » pl«& cf 7dl«it.9« ef «rrer« »houi^l b» ftUftt»lB*(l 
or overruled. Tha q,u@«tlQft th«ai« of G&urM*, tut&a ea t!3>* 
•uffloiiHiQ? of th« pl9a^ 

80 f&f au» material, the pl«« &v«r9 that a, d«NnP«« »»• 
ffintflrad la %ha Circuit Court of Cook Cooaty ft«r«Tdinf ISCOO. 
to a pelle«* C^»rla« A. fhito, stnn that it be jkld by the 
R««4iYer a.^^>oi&ted ia that o»8«; thsst fro«i tbis 1i«o7«Hi th» 
di^eun'&sts proAocutad ^ut apM»&l to this court »li«jrc the 
»att«r iik now pimdin^* The ^eceivar ^id not a»pf«&l fro* the 
deorda. It ie furtii^^r avorred th&t d«fRa»^rant* vers stook* 
holders in t]&« Midli^d Ca«iJL3J.tx C«B,piittf« for «biob aospiuay 
tbe Beoaiver ^as a,.^ oi&ted, <^j^ tli»t '.be t80C0*, »b«B paid« 
««&ld be paid fro* the pfopectf of tbat 36«{'.^«7} tb».t a^fter 
tbs f.n%rf of the decree add after tb« perfeotioo ^t the 
appaal in tKi- «>mirt, the Receiver filed his retiticr. in 

d .A.i dIS 


«st«red law \>f thd M&dl^ad Cacualny C^mp^jaf aiad th« 

aiKOUBt of t)i« d«cr^3t ^^<^ ^^ (talced Ie&v« te la»tit»at« f^(^ 
ed#diiigs »gii.lfist the Wl«c&»«iit a0iep%fiy for %%^ rs^every 
ef irucli lusouQl} that aa erdejr vae <»tit«tra^ KatltorjLsi&f bin 
to brlag^ tlj« mxi.t and that sft«t^«sirds In ac3©r>iatno« tha^r«^ 

*X%h, & suit aram lB«titutdd 1» tii« Ciroult QKmrt of Co€ilr 
County a^%in»t tli« fii&3eaiil& Gcjrpofmtloa; that ma »tt&sb- 
m«sR% ie ^a ef tliat suit «4.s Isaiiad aiid ««rred os » g&it* 
ni»h«« iB Cock Countiri tli»t tlm ^u7&i8h<i« aa8«<»r9d sfc^aiittlaf 
lo<i4ibt«<ines9 to ihs Wii^iom^elii eorpor^tlos; tbat in tli«.% 
mnX% Xhi. Hseelvaf filed » Mil ef psrtioulare «^9inf tteat 
it «m« lt»rouglit to ftteoYftjr frme titio Wi«co&sisi eoffex^^tlos tke 
ISCOO. Jii»&rde4 Wj^it». It Is fujrth«r mv#rrdd *ttvat tk« 
utiit ««ifc^ inaititut«4 »Bd is Issiag pro$eoiited ssd ao&trollod 
by Fy^n'*. F, Joyner, F«sai^«ir, isjad furtiisr that said »«ilt 
«a<a iastltiata4 aiKl is being |;ro«0euted by &®Ad H<sodiv«]r vltfe 
t&« ksottlodfo, s.*.'!rovaI aadt oofisdnt of %i.^ell«u%ts (d«m,irrimt8) 
h@rdia*, a.euS tl^t th$ suit is tot th@ ua€ mjmI tMm#fit &f the 
Ili41tt54 Casualty Cospa&y of ^hicll ddsmrraats %r«t istock- 

Tk« 4«mirr«r »«ts U|;» »8 spooiaJl groimds t£t»t 

th« rle«k alldi^i^a a^-tt^ra tliat oemtrra^ pfior to t%« «»&try of 

t&o d«oree la tho Circuit Court; ti^t it ie frl-relotts i!.n5 
Itooo aot ooi»#titttt« & ;:!«» ef r «!•«.»• of etf&s» ^%.n th«t 
ftfti^ matters »B^ thing's so sot forth do not, nor do aay of 
thea, answer asaifea.^ata of »rror ttpon the record or «aiy of 
ftuoh »»»igmi«ato. * The fiyat point la eloarly uatsR^B^bXe, for 
'•- -1-^ «-.„i^ i^« ««i«ta!iiiribl« Tialoeo soato facto tore 

iO «le 

&ll«ig«d %&&% took pl&ac piTior tc Xh» 4««ir«e. fh# 
argiuBcnt i« cvipi^ert «/ the enccud ^&imA of dcsmrr«7 e#e<ss 
to l>« that tk<» pXe& is In &o sunse one of a ?«Ieii«e of 
errors is th&t it dlo««» not purport to »&»'*9T the iisel^a* 
Recta of &trot, Tbe for« of p^*^ &»re filed im^e b««is 
r«r«at«dlf held euffioisiat t>y tb« Suprcnao Court, Cof«m ▼£ 
8i^O^P. 78 III. ?4«, ^tt St £&1U» ^«^' ^3.1. 149, Langlier jr^ 
Glaa. ??8 111. 542. A plea ii s«fflcient if it e«t» up 

f%€ts tbstt sb£w tuft Portias appaaliag fro» th« dtforss or 
jttdpi^nt hAW% «ra&s9qufBUy iM;o«pt«4 th« b«a«fit8 of tii« 

AiiotK«y epeolAl groimd of d«aijyr«p »ad« S« tfemt tfee 
pl«k falls to s^llege thai th« d^iaifraBtc havo fl^odptadl t^d 
bofiafita of th« d«orea. la jreply to t&ie It is »ai3 taat 
it appaaro tr^n %h« %Xlaqg»tiem« ef llie plsa tba« t}i« F»- 

oiiTsr Is j&ulng asaether coap'uiy to rtsovor ^000,, itkn 
ai&eiint of ti^a deo7@«» ^uid that JEid sued out a writ of attaoli> 
««iit iQ &id of t^at suit, aad tl&« garaishea tl^ara asifvsd 
adaita iMd^^%edn&aB to th« dafaadajQt oottpany ia ti)&t 0&it. 
Ttoat tSie«« faet» aro admitted )»y t^s dsnurri^r %&d *iii<llaat« 
tho aooepta»ca of ooBsi^^iS^rabla b«»«fit froti %hm deor@<a, aod 
tfeat if ths Pac^ivex' tliiaka »«il eacug-fe cf «li« v-Ui<iity 
of tfe# daoree •*••••♦• to b&ao a nuit tor rei8burs««ent ^ 
it and^ rftsoft to the unusual rsllaf of 9& attatehKoat in 
aid, ar> 9ll%nte (dcscujrrirista) «>&Ottd rij^rhta are ^-^ll derived 
fros th« Re«3iv«r, oanioot at t]^e gama %in% h& haarci to urge 
r«v<»r@al la this court.* ^e t&ii^ this arpx«»^kst 1« uneouad, 
for if thd d[9««irr«tBt« Ibu&d a ri^bt te a&paal fr^i th^ deorea^ 
a»d ng poirst is aiada that th^«y hara not ?mefe rlgiJit, th^a 
tli&t right eotil^ aot be takda aaay irtm th«« by th« BaesiTor. 

.fS0 ^ttu^\ 

thXn wo'iid fee th« r«?i»ult If r:o n«al»u Hrguni«nt w«r« 

Kut w*i find II exaiaination of tiv^ plea tiat it 
Is a¥«*rre<i that th* B-»it n^jainst th« "^^isconiiin <K5irp»»ratlofj 
is b«»iag pro««out«id "by th<» K*«e«iT«r •with th« knowl«dij«, and 
approTKl, nad s»on««at of* d>*rottrrant«. W# «r<» of the opinion 
tlwat thi« allctRntion, on whicih «# think th«» »ufri5t<»Bay of 
tlM» 3le« tumst dO"?!!! not. add anything to it. Th» pl«» avortt 
that th6 suit wa« inetitutod aft«r ii« eoart h«td »uthorisad 
it on t)s« Bfte'"iY«F*B petition* nnd thn faai th^t it was b«inc; 
pro»eautt4 'b^ t>M H«(}oiY«r «ith th'f Icnowlffdga, approval and 
oonsoat of t.^ liawarranta would in no ^ay affeot th« j^roa** 
fiution of tiukt siiit. Th« JK«««iTO]r did not n««d tho approTal 
or CO naant of t^ daHnarraate, mid whether thA^ ^av* it or 
withhold it» ao tar as thfl k>laa shows woutd not aff«ot th« 
aotions of ins Ma^oivor in proooGutiac th« suit. 

9« t^.ink tho f>l«a fnils to ali«g« suffioi'nt faats 
in that it aoesi not mppti^r %hfi% an^^thins dosiurrants haT« dcno 
has f«id«d or aaeistad in Any wny tho preaaoution of th* suit 
acainat tha Visoonsin oorporation. 

Th« d<*aRurrar to tha bill will* th'»r<?for«, b« aua- 
taia»d« and ih« App^lltoB sro givan laave t» Join in arror, 
if they ao d'^'sira, «nd to fll*» th«*lr ^riftfu within th# tiwa 
hor«tofor« allowsd. 


lift. FH^^iMHO JUfiTiar< 'facttaoK BisaiijssTiao: 

X aa ima.blf« to aonour in tba d«9ision aniiounoad 
ia the foragt)intf nmjarity Di>lnion« Tha Kquiiablo ;v«auritie8 
Company and otii<tra, staokholdera in th« Midland Oaatialt/ 
CfOflBpany* filt»d a bill !!)t^in«t that oflispan/ to wind up its 

affalm. fkite fil«di as lat«rT<mlsg p«»»ltlos sotting up 

petit iea« tk« C««irt «At)»red & de<^fao aaXo«iag %hik cl^la 
»i«l r*f|virl©g th« Mldlsaai Coasraay t© pay tiiit« tfe# aws <ijf 
^^00. I» ooar^eatlos ^ith th4 drI^;is%X «&ae» & RfSQ^iTCC 
tutd t»«<9« ftpf::«liited. 7113 l^i^a^i-foir did aot S:.p^>«al froe li^^ 

S9er3# la fa-ror of tnltts* Imt th« Midland Ccmpaey am^ scmr« 

of lt» at«ollkold#r« did p^srfsot the psfiding; appeal froa tlie 
Wbite d«erd«. 

la tUe suit later b9^;uji by th« Keceiv^^r of %hm 
Midl^ad Coftpaay 4i^.inst thd Midlautd OtsuaXtf Coi»p^my of 
fi@ces«tiii« (in %&icb It is &li6f«4 tfa^t tl^a lotttdr oo«p^«f 
is li&blc fat t&« MNM»t ef tbe diM»r«e recovar^il by Vi^it«« 
by Tit tue of a r«ifi«ur%9e« aoBtr%at «xi»tl&f botir««B %h€ 

t«o C«k^i»ualtiy Ooepani«i»)« this laa oi* rel«sk#« of «rrort ftllege* 
t&« :R«oeiv«r i&lf^id a bill of .vsxticmlaro ot&tiag %h&,% t&» 
sttit is l^roiight to f4Covfir the I80C0. adju4g«4 by tb« eourt 
to b« pjaad by tli« Eeeeiroc to liiito u&der %oa by vir^o of 
tlie door«9 isem «biuli tbe apj^oliaAte* etooJcboldam in %ikM 
Midland C^^tualty Cosp^my, suAd t]&« ooii|>&&y itt^elf, ajto pro80» 
ei&tiag t2ii« &;:.reHl. 

The ploA of ;r3l€E%«a o;f @rxojr» fajPtb^r ^llegoo 
tbAt the #uit against «b9 fisooiisis aoiR^aay ia b^is^ proso* 
Ottted by tli« Beee'lvajp •»itb tb« kB©al«d|r«# »>»* a^rroval, aul 

oe&»«at of »;pollaiits b«tr^iA* ^u&d tb&t said ouit is for th^ir 
mso 8t«4 boeofit. 

It is aot a qu«stlo& of tfhftther t&e Rooel'Vdr 
iiWttl^ prossoute tbo m«it against the Wi^oon^io eosrpsuoiy «itb-> 
Ottt tttg%td to t&« attitude of tbose !i.fpellaat». U&dor tlio 
allogations of th« ploa, which ars a,dteittod by tbo flosatrrer. 



1«0 rdvev&al lii^r*, are &Ii«^i»g its T&lldity aoji biadiag 
fores in th^ isuit agalast ibs &'i»oo&i»la ttOJRi^any, throu^li 
tbslr r«ipre»ei»t«.tiv«» «&«» K909i.v«x'a fey r«^sca ef thu imj&t 
thsL% &« i» pr(&««cmtittg «&iit Jiuii»* i3«»t ov«$^' th@i7 ptot^ttt 
or in eplto oJt tlk«ir rtt'4ii<»at ^^.t lie rafr&ifi uatlX thi« 
«i^p«al «ay hst iatetsin^gd, \^% ^s the pX«a all«^-«3 s^-i tl'i€ 

eotAtimt. * 

By »ffimifi^ this dearie and talisg ^4itrmnl&f« 
ef the reinsurasce oo^traet with th« wi^eoasin eeitpsai' in 
a »uit» bsus«d €m the vaii'.Uty of .ha iecx-ee, broasiiit by the 
Receivar, (*&o is the «aly ofifi «ho ^^ula bring i^e suit 
r«pr«s«atiag tk9»e appsXl^uats}* aiil aeeuxio^ beaasfittt ue^ex 
tJbat «uit» »s tlie pXo& e^e^a t« &« t^«s &a^«s« in tyis^ up 
f\i»4« ©i" 1;h« Wi^a^aslit !5©3sii**ny in thli* juri»^ictiofi« ta ay 
epijaioa^ tks »pf^«Xl^int8 hmta f#Xd%4»a4 the errors a-lltged by 
th^se on thie a^. eaX »n^, tli%r«f(^r«, I b^llsTd ti:»d dssturiref 
fiJ&ouX4 bs $v&SZ'uX«d and th9 :pX^a of r^Xdaise of errer& sl«ouXd 
b« heXd to ^ ge^a 

110 - 25364 


Defendant in jl^ror, 



Plaintiff iii Error. 


>q/j > 

W y 



The defendant. Chandler, charged with being the 
keeper of a disorderly house located at no. 500 T^^orth Clark 
street in Chicago, in violation of section 2019 of the Chi- 
cago Code, was upon trial toy the court found guilty and fined 

He asks this court to reverse the judgment on the 
ground that it is n«t supported by the evidence. We have ccn- 
sidered all the evidence and the arguments of counsel thereon 
and are of the opinion that the cxxarge as tc tne character of 
the house was sufficiently proven. This was established not 
only by the testimony of the officers but by the definite 
testimony of the young men vbo were guests at the time in 

It is Rise established that the defendant. Chandler, 
knew of the disorderly character of the place by tlxe testiraony 
of these same young aaen that he had directed some of there to a 
room occupied by a prostitute. This is denied by the defendant; 
yet the trial Judge having seen the witnesses was better quali- 
fied to Judge of their credibility than are we, and we shall not 
diffar from his conclusion. 

There were no reversible errors caiufflitted upon the 
trial. As the case was tried by the court ana the finding was 

:t" C' - ^- ^ -^ 

abundantly supported by competent evidence, errors, if any, in 
the admiBBion of testimony are not important. 

There is no authority for the proposition that the 
guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
It has been decided to the contrary in Cit;r v, s tone , 187 ill, 
App. 90, where it ims held that the violation must be proven, 
like any ordinary city suit for the recovery of a penalty, by a 
clear preponderance of tLe evidence. 

Nothing affecting the propriety of the finding can 
be derived from the fact, if it is a fact, that the City did 
not introduce all of the evidence which might have been procured. 

As the finding was Justified by the testiciOny and 
there were no reversible errors on the trial, the judgment is 


'>hrr«i»i;q XA»1 

!f.**b «■ 

« f?9fln: 

134 > 25366 

VmtLK 0? THf 3TAT1 OF XlJpHOIS, 1 




Plainiiff Irf Krror, 


1 - / / X •■■' / J 

\ / / 1/ "^ 


216I.A. 641 


The defendant, 'i^lxon, asks for the reversal of a 

Judgiaent against him finding hin g^uilty of a misdemeanor and 

sf^ntenoing him to the House of Correction for six months. It 

was charged that on July 29, 1919, he 

"did then and there aaeemble upon the streets of the city 
of ChicagR, for the purpose of disturbing the peace or 
committing any unlawful not contrary to the form of the 
statute in such q^se made and provided, and against the 
peace and dignity of Th«» feorle of the State of Illinoia," 

It is conceded by the attorney for The leeple that 
this charges no crime known to the lav. 

After finding defendant guilty of this ohnrge and 

the imposition of sentence it was ordered by the court that the 

inforir.ation be au»ended to read as follows; 

"John Xdxon did then and tnere assenxble upon the 
streets of the City of Chicago with unknown persona, for 
the purpose of disturbing the peace or oomeiitting any tin- 
lawful act contrary to the statute in «uou case isade and 
provided, and against tiie peace and dignity of the leople 
of the .itate of Illinois,* 

V* knew of no authority for the practice of amending 

an Information after Judgaent and sentence. I,on|g v. Th e leople , 

135 111. 435, dees not decide that this loay be done. 


we do not think tHia cured the lnf©rm»tion; at le««t 
we find nothing in the Griainal Code ««king such conduct a crime. 
If this was an attempt to charge defendant with a violation of 
•action 252, cViapter 33. it oaitted the important element of 
the refusal of the aeaeffibly to disperse upon conunRnd of an 

Another fatal defect is that the eridenoe does not 
support the charge. It waa shown that defendant, from a window 
of 8 room, in which be was alone, of a third floor flat, fired 
a gun, wounding an officer. He might properly have been in- 
dicted for an aeeault with a deadly weapon. In any event, the 
Judgment in the present case cannot stand and it ie reversed. 



146 - 25400 

CHAELB6 H. RAimLL. " / 
\ Appellee/ 






, App.i^nt. i gig I. A. 641 

un, pHEsiMsro justice mcsurely 
nmjYmm) the ouniok op thi court. 

llaintiff was euployed l>y the defendant as an ad- 
Tertising man upon a basis of weekly salary plus a bonus d««> 
pending upon the amount of adTertialng procured. The aggre- 
gate of this bonus for the year 1914 was $600.70. A dispute 
arose as to whether this had been paid and. not agreeing, 
plaintiff brought. suit and upon trial by a Jury had a Yerdiot 
and jud^(?>nt for the full amount of his clalfii, $600. 70, from 
which defendant appeals. 

The contract of employment wna evi 'fenced by two 
letters, the first dated Decesaber 22, 1913, from the defendant 
to plaintiff, stating among other things that plaintiff's 
salary would be #65 a week and also a bonus at a certain rate 
per line for an increase in advertising over a certain amount. 
The letter provided that "The bonus for 1914 will be paid you 
in weekly install rnents during the year 1915, same being added 
to your weekly check." The letter also said, "At the end of 
the year 1915 . we hope to oaks another arrangement with you 
along the saoie lines," This proposition was accepted by plain- 
tiff by his letter written the following day. 

Plaintiff proceeded to perfonn the duties of his 
employment during the year 1914, at the end of which time he 

"^ '^ 

.^^ i.n 

had earned* as abore stated, $60G.7C as a bonus. During the 
year 1915 he received a weekly payment of 4f2,50', he attesipted 
by his testimony to prove that this was for salary only, the 
excess over $6'^ a week being an increase in salary. The de- 
fendant's testiisony tended to show that this excess was paid 
to plaintiff as instaliaents to be credited upon the amount of 
the bonus due him, and paid in this way pursuant to the con- 
tract of ©nplojrment. 

The oontraot is not ambiguous upon this point; it 
is clearly provided that any bonus earned in 1914 shall be paid 
in weekly instalments during 1915 to be added to the weekly 
salary check. This is so obvious as not to require argument. 
Accordingly we hold thnt the ag^rregate of the excess weekly 
payments in 1915 over |;65 a week must be credited on account 
of the sjsDount due plaintiff for his bonus. This amounts to 
a credit of $390, wKich would leave a balance unpaid of $210. 7Q. 

The above conclusion is supported not only by the 
proper construction of the contract, bui also by a written state* 
ment of account made by the plaintiff and rendered to the defend' 
ant in which this weekly instalment of $7.50, aggregating $390, 
is credited as a payment on th^ bonus account. 

Plaintiff continued to work for defendant for 30 
weeks in 1916, during which time he received a weekly pay check 
for |75. Defendant claims that this excess of $10 a week, ag- 
gregating $300, should be credited upon this bonus account. It 
is not clear idiy this should be dene. The evidence «s to the 
cause of this increase is very meager. Plaintiff says that be- 
ginning in January, 1916, he began to receive, without his re- 
quest, e weekly pay check for $75; that it was "at the time they 
made the raise for everything," 

■}t}ii9ikBt Hid x^ 



In face 9f defendant's undertaking by its letter 
of December 22, 1913, to pay the bonus of 1914, meaning all of 
it, in weekly instalnients during the year 1915, we cannot con- 
clude that the excess payments in 1916 were intended to apply 
upon the bonus account of 1914, 

There were errors upon the trial which would re- 
quire a reversal. These should not occur upon another trial if 
another trial should be had. llaintiff is not entitled to re- 
cover more than $210.70. For the reasons above indicated the 
Judgjaent is reversed and the cause refflanded. 



155 - 254&9 

C. A. <?AT80N'i*; iJOmJ, a aorporftion, 

\ Appellee. 




AJ^Y KRAJ'."ER, JOS.-ei;H FRAI^EH ,/»»ITJ,IATi« . .-^ 

KRAIJ'-R and J'ORhlJ\i;AGEa,c/pftrtner s , SOIATA 1^4-Z 

doinp business as ptAJlfl^TJOS. & MAGES, ) iM X ^ X«rl.« '(ij '31 ^i^ 

Al^jj^elLents, ) 


Defendants by tjaia appeal seek the reversal of a 
judgnaent against th«a f©r |121,50. entered after a trial by 
the court. The only questions are those of fact* and as the 
trial Judge saw the witnesses we do not feel disposed to differ 
from his conclusions. 

Both parties are dealers in market products. Upon 
thp evidence the court could properly find that plaintiff had a 
earload of potatoes, invoiced at 20C barrels; that the oar was 
wrecked, damaging some of the potatoes; that the lot was sold 
to the defendants at |i2.70 a barrel, although the laarket pric« 
was 13.75 to .j!4 a barrel; that the reduced price was on account 
of the dajBHged condition. Jrlaintlff subsequently asked payment 
for 200 barrels at the agreed price, but defendants claiiaed that 
in rehandling they got only 155 barrels out of the lot, and having 
•ent a check for this amount they declined tc pay the balance. 
This suit is for the balance. 

It is clear that the purchase was in the nature of a 
•peculation by the defendants; they were to take the entire lot at 
the reduced price, knowing that the car had been wrecked. As one 
•f the defendants said, "This price was made because the stuff was 
not good." They aust therefore abide by their contract to pay for 

200 Tsarrels «ven if, iu rehandling» it developed that the quantity 
of detnoged potatoes vrae larger tlian they anticipated. 

There is also evidence that when plaintiff wade a de- 
mand for the balance due, one of the defendants, after »cme talk, 
prc'-ised to send n check for same. 

The claim of the defendartta that the check 9«nt in 
payment for 155 barrels was accepted in full settlcjent by the 
plaintiff is not supported by the evidence, "^his check was 
neither tendered nor accepted as a payment in full. 

There is no reason tc disturb the Judgiaent, snd it 
Is effirmed. 

177 - 25432 


of Estate of VILLIAl' AlBJaT ^IIISLS, 
dee eased, 

\ llaintlff ^n &rror. 




CHICAGO liAlLtfAYS GC>KPAHY, 4 con ora- 
tion, \ / 

Sifftadxuit in Irror. 


216I.A. 642 

im, P^iaiBIKG JUiiTICB MoiiiJRKLY 

By this writ of error pin in tiff 9«p>if8 the rt*versBl of 
an adTfirae Jud^Tment upon n directed verdict in an action brougiit 
to recover con-.pcnastion for the death of filliam jchiele, urtio 
had been a pwsaenger on onf^ of defendant's street car* and who 
in some manner either fell or tma thrown from the rear platform 
onto thf street, rpceivin^, the injuries which caused his death. 

The declaration in 6 ocunts charged t/;»t defend- 
ant's car was suddenly increased in apeed, j erxed and propelled 
forward, propelled witii the aide oi' Uie re«r platfcrai open and 
unenclosed without any protecticn to passengers against failing 
off or being thrown off while the car was in laoticn; that the 
car operated upon a defective roadbed, and wee operated upon & 
curve with an unreasonable tate of speed. At the conclusion 
of plaintiff's en 3*?, upon motion of the defendant, the court 
instructpd tVie jurv to bring in s verdict of "not guilty," 
wtiieh was accordingly cjone and JudiSjBent was entsred upon the 

The testimony supporting plaintiff's allegations 
6f negligence is in a snail corapass. The car was described as 
an open "pay-as-you- enter* car; that ia, the entrance aide of 


the rear pisiform was not enclosed. Tone of the cars on this 
line at tils time had this entramec enclosed. 

The accident haj^pened about 9; 30 p, je., Decer /bef 
23, 193 5. The oar ^«a going north or; Clark street In C Icago, 
It stopped at Belden avenue, an east ani west Btre<*t, n.n<\ dece- 
dent boarded the car. ""he only witTicsja to the occurrence said 
that he saw the decedent get on, saw hiJM put his hand in Viis 
pocket to pay his fare; Uiat apparently he dropped the fare anA 
made a motion to pick it up; that hs then heard a wc.^nn scream 
and the conductor** eoiexgency signal tc stop; that vitneas a&d 
the conductor walked back about a car*e len/.th and found decedent 
lying on the ground. The Mfitness said, *I don»t know exactly 
what happened,** 

There was an entire Absence of any evidence as to 
negligent operation of the oar with reference to spe<^d er the 
manner of its moTetxient, and no evidence as tn a df>fective roed- 
bed, or thnt the acoiaent happened at r^ny curve, ^lile there is 
sorae evi^lenoe as to a curve naar "'ullPTton '^-v^mxe, the street 
next north of Belden, there is nc pvidence whatever that the 
car iiad reached the curve when the accident happened. The 
plaintiff's Trltness testified thnt thi^ car was running in the 
usual and ordinary way, 

The only evidence tending to support any «ll«i:ati«a 
of negli(j;enoe waa tii«t the entrance side of the rear platfona 
was open and unenclosed. «e find no case in -isrhich it has been 
held that it vras the duty of a carrier as a i&utter of law to en- 
close the platfoma of its cars, en tue contrary, the law seeaa 
to be well eetablished that there i» no such duty upon carriers. 
The rule is stated in 7 Thaaipson on Segligence, 3483: 

"A street railroBd cotapany will not be iajputed with 
actionable neglif;ence by the raere fact that it allows passen- 
gers to occupy its platfoxw, or allowing this use of the 

platforia, falls to protect the platform with gates," 

Asong the many oasea supporting this rul« «sr« B yron 
^' PY^^ and a, K. Co., 177 .\a»». 5o3; alotofaki v. ijoatori 1 . Ej, 
Co.. 215 iasa, 318; Weat Ibila, taaa . liy. Co . v, Qallagiier , lo8 
ia. at. 524, 52S; Bridges ▼. j s^Gkaon ]a« Hy « » 3 ■. i * ^ ^- . Co . » 8* 
Jiias. 584; jjronao n t. Si2^^» ''^^ 1^'ecl. 734, 74r; qstnac m v. 3£, H ;i r , 
Co., Ill :^ed. 887; Augusta Hya . Co. y . Glover , 9ii Ca, 132; jit. ]j^, 
I. F. !f- S. IRy. CO. V. liver , 9«; Ark. 432; f 'randall v. t.',, :=^t^ p . 
& :>. 3. t:. Ry. Co ., 96 rinn, 434; 8 Thompson on Negligence, sec- 
tion 2785, In F-lair v, r., C. ^ P. P. Co., 205 HI. App. 16', it 
vas held that fiyen where n vestibule trnir ^mB provided, it was 
not negllRsnoe to have the dccra open between stops unless seme 
special reason appears for keeplnfr tbom shut. 

Following these cases, we hold that proof that the 
rear platforta of defendant's car was at the tia:e of this occtjrrence 
open Rnd unenclosed. la no evidence of npglljtcnce, ns there wos no 
duty upon defenoant to enclose tne platforxu. 

The res ipsa loquitur ruie cannot be invoked. : pacific 
acta of negligence were charged agsinat the defendant; there wert 
no general charges; in this state of tne pleadings the doctrine 
cajrinot be invoked. Crawford v. C. U. T. Co ., 137 111, Ajr, 163; 
and oaoee there cited. Furthcrrrore, the open platforci was visible 
and known to the passenger at the time he bcerded th<? car. inder 
such circuaistances the passenger is required tc tnke reasonable 
earr for hiis own aafety, Z Thompson en ^'eirlirence, see. 2763. 

Inhere ia evidence tending to she^ that the decedent 
was steeping down to pick up a farr fhleh he had dropped. It Is a 
reasonable Inference from this that through his own aotion he fell 
from the platforjK. The reis ij sa . loquitur rule does not apply -yhere 
the occasion of the accident was an active, voluntary jnovement ^y 
the injured person, coabined witii an alleged insufficiency in the 

carrier* » -i eana of transportation. 3 Tuofiipaon on J!8<^lif,«nc«, sec. 
276*; FjSIIISL "** £• SZ* ££•» ^®^ ^^^* App.336; ye?^dden v. Chio afeO. 
0, I. .^ I, n. n, Co ., 149 111, App, 298; Barnes ▼. DanTill« ^t, H^, 
CiC., 238 .111. 566. 

^■'^ Jo"* , » ■'^^ '-^iicasi o lit ^^ j^. ^. ^., 147 111 , App, 64, . 
the court aaid: 

"If plnintiff fell froff! the car ns the car vme running 
in tre usual roanner, '/ith only th- »rdinary aictian or swaying of 
the car» he h»« no right ef action againat tne defendant for 
injuries eustoinpd by aucri a fall," 

Plaintiff '8 evideno* entirely failed to prove any of 
the ailetjations in txie declaration of any actionable negligence 
which caused the accident. 

It is a fair inference tkat the decedent fell from the 
platform becauue of his own hurried ttiOTement in attempting to re- 
cover his money accidentally dropped. 

Considering the pviSence on the purt sf the plaintiff 
Ml true, and ^ith all just inf er«nce drawn thftrefroa most favor- 
able to plaintiff, it fsila to aake out a p ri'jse ^^c ^, g esse. Prider 
sucii circumstances it was tht? ra^ty c^ the trlPl court to instruct 
for the defendant. 

For the above reasrns the judv^oent is proper and Is 


186 - 25441 

\ I \ 

E. F. WITT, I ) 

Ai>p«llee, I ) 

"• "■ ' i 

C. p. WI?HHA1I and lAUL H.;.T]XXIAiia» } 




doing bueineas as The Clrd-CRgo Oil ) O 1 ^ T /k 1^ i4. 9 

Exchan£;e. and The CMcago and )^XO ^©ri.R 'O^^ 

Western Oil l<;xch.ange, 




Upon a trifll "befcre court and jury, plaintiff had 
judgment against the two defendants, ^, P. Wenhaia and laul H, 
Williams, for $500, from which they appeal. The oause was or- 
iginally in assijutipsit hut was amended to become an action in 
tort. B, H, Mason was originally made a co-defendant but was 
not aerTed, and the case was diamieeed as to hi«. 

The gist of the action was that the defendants 
represented that they were acting on behalf of Tuo Chicago oil 
Exchange and also of the Chicago «/estern Oil Exchange, which 
were represented to be incorporated under the laws of Illinois, 
which representations they knew to be false; that relying upon 
said representations, the plaintiff was induced to pay $500 upon 
promise to iesjue and deliYsr to him 5 shares of stock in The 
Chicago Oil lilxchange, but that no stock had ettr been issued, 
tendered or delivered to the plaintiff. ?/e are of the opinion 
that plaintiff failed to prove this claim and that the evidence 
fails to qhow that the defsnnants or either of theiii ever wade 
•ny representations concerning these cocapanies to the plaintiff or 
had any communication with him ccncerning the issuance of stock, 
And in fact had no official connection with said corporations and 


?i .^r <:; ;■ «iil.a ^, 

received none of th« money alleged to have been paid by plain- 

It seems to U8 quite clear tliat the evidence e8> * 

tablishes that the aitlre busineea of the two corporaticns, 
whatcTcr it was, belonged to B, K, tnson, who had hie office 
at 177 i.crth Clark street, Chicago; that the plaintiff got 
in touch with Haaon through en InvestBMsnt agency, the character 
of which ia not made clear, but defendants were not connected 
with it; that he called on Kason and Koveraber 15, 1917, entered 
into a written contract which was signed by the plaintiff and 
by "B. H. J-aaon, for The Chicago Oil Ex.* By this contract 
the first party (Mason) agreed to issue to the aecond party 
(Vitt) 5 aliarea of stock of The Chicago oil Exclmnge for j|500 
cash. Witt was also to ot ss sales manager at the ssain office 
or in any branch office. 

Plaintiff's suit is based upon thia contract, but 
he has wholly failed to show that the defendants, Wenharu and 
Willianis, were in any way parties to It, The only connection 
WenhsK had ■with Uason end his oil companies was as follows: 
WenhGuc Tjaa manager of the Chicago safe r^, l»erchandis« "o., ifhioh 
fitted bason's office with furniture upon a rental contract of 
$250 a month, the collection of which brought •'Tenham occasionally 
into Ka8on»« office, but Wenham did not know '^itt and never saw 
him until the day of the trial. 

A letterhead was introduced in evidenoe, bearing 
f«nhaio»3 name, but «/enha«i denied that his name was placed thereon 
with his authority, and testified that the first tljce he had seen 
or known of auch letterhead was when it was sho^^ri to him at the 
trial. The fact that Wenham's compeuiy sold the fumit'^re for 
lason»s office and the fact that wenham may have occasionally been 
seen there afford no ground whatever for any conclusion that he 

was a party to the contraot with '?itt or was one of the prinoipala 
intsreated in the oil companlee. 

Williams' connection with the matter is equally 
tenuous. The evidence shows that '^iiiiama had much the aame 
connection with The Clucago c;il lixchange as did the plaintiff; 
that ia, he was employed as cashier and bookkeeper; he had a 
contract with A.aaon for the purchase of stock and employment 
substantially like plaintiff's contract. There is no evidence 
whatever that either ^enham or Williams ever made any represent 
tation to the plaintiff or had any dealings with him of any kind 
or received any part of the money paid by the plaintiff to yason. 
The evidence deuionstrates that Fason was the sole promoter and 
manager of the enterprise, and that the money received from plain- 
tiff R3 vrell as from others he induced to invest went into and 
r«r.ained in his pockets, 

^e cannot agree with the finding of the Jury that 
the facte justify recovery from the defendants, hence the judgment 
of the jiUnicipal court is r«versed with findings of fact. 


.a* j:.«t;-. 

186 - 25441 


Ve find as facta that the defendants, C. F. Wenham and 
Paul U. tfilllaia0« did not hold themselTes out as aoting for and 
on behalf of The Chicago Oil JSacchange or of The Chicago and 
Western Oil Exchange* and did not represent then, to be in- 
corporated under and by virtue of the laws of the State of 
Illinois; that plaintiff was not induced by any representa- 
tions made by the defendants or either of them to part with 
$500 upon the promise that there should be issued and delivered 
to plaintiff 5 shares of stock in said corporations or either 
of them; and we find as a fact that neither of the defendants 
represented or claimed to represent said corporations; and we 
also find that neitlrier of them at any time made any representa- 
tions whatever to the plaintiff concerning said companies or 
entered into any oontraot or agreement with him conoerning them 
or stock therein, or received any moneys or part thereof which 
plaintiff may have paiA for such stock. 

l^*ef> - »i 

250 - 25487 \ 



T8. \ 





Plaintiff brought suit clalising oommissione due hla 
vhile enployed by defendant as a salesman of automobile trucks, 
and upon trial had a -verdict and judgment for 4p309, from which 
the defendant appeals. 

The only point argued in defense is that the plain> 
tiff took a Flanders automobile without permission of the de- 
fendant and retained the same, plaintiff testified specifically 
that the defendant told hin to take an old Flanders ear, along 
with another, and fix It up and try to sell it, and that it was 
taken under this authority. 

A special interrogatory was submitted to the jury as 
to whether plaintiff had Biisappropriated this automobile, which 
was answered in the negative. 

The jury had the opportunity to see the witnesses 
and to weigh their variant stories, and we have no sufficient 
grounds for disagreeing with its judgment as to their credibility. 
This is the only point made in defense and we shall leave the con« 
elusion of the Jury thereon undisturbed, 


231 - 25486 



-X - / ( A J J 




Plaintiff upon trial by the court had Judgment 
against the defendant for ^700, whicn defendant aeska to have 
reTereed, but upon the record before U9 it must be affirmed. 

Among the reaeona for affirming are: (1) The 
abstract, which is the pleading of the appellant, give* us no 
information as to the issue. The action ia described aa re- 
plevin, with a count in trover and "Affidavit of merita.* 
This gives us no iofoiTnation as to the subject matter of the 
suit nor the oharscter of the defense. (2) The relationa be- 
tween the plaintiff and defendant seero to have been established 
by some four writings ^ich were introduced as eacJ-iibits. Fone of 
these is abstracted. In the absence of infOTKiation ai to their 
contents we shall assume they were sufficient to establish plain- 
tiff's claim. (3) The only point argued is the sufficiency of 
the evidence. After giving it consideration we aee no sufficient 
reason to disagree with the conclusion of the court. 

The subject matter of the suit apparently was a 
*two-ton Republic kotor Truck.* There aeema to be no dispute as 
to the fact that on December 30, 1916, the plaintiff mad« a con- 
tract with ihe Chicago Beverage Company to sell it three "Easter 
Trucks" and to receive aa part of the purchaae price three used 
trucks, one of them being the Republic truck, the subject matter 
of this suit. To carry out this sale, plaintiff purchased the 

"Maoter Trucks" in hi 8 naroe and delivered them to The Chicago 
Beverage Co., receiving the coneideration therefor in cash and 
the used trucks. Defendant seems tc rely upon an oral arrangement 
between him and plaintiff, whereby the profits of this deal were 
tc he divided, the defendant to get the Republic truck as his 
share. The stories of the plaintiff and the defendant upon this 
point were in direct contradiction.' 

The trial court Saw and heard the witnesses and 
could better judge as to credibility than we can, a'c cannot say 
its conclusion as to which story was better entitled to belief 
was iraproper. 

?or the above reasons the judgment is affirmed. 

79 - 25527, 

STAITLEY lENZ, Administrator ) 
of Estate of JOHN STEIKERT, 







216T.A. 643 


This is an appeal by defendant from a judfpent en- 
tered in the Superior court of Cook County in favor of the 
plaintiff for |5,500. 

Plaintiff '3 intestate, a boy 10 years of age, re- 
ceived injuries which caused his death by being stuck by a one- 
ton motor truck o.vned by defendant while deceased was in the act 
of crossing West Division street at its intersection with North 
Hermitage avenue in Cliicago. 

The counts of plaintiff's declaratim upon which 
the CRse was tried charge that the defendant was guilty of neg- 
ligence "^^;hich caused the injuries to and death of deceased, in 
driving the motor truck at a high and dangerous rate of speed 
in violation of Illincia statutes; by negligently operating 
the motor truck and by a negligent failure to keep a sufficient 
look-out and to sound a horn, etc. 

The evidence introduced upon the trial shows that 
en the morning of l^iay 8, 1917, an employe of defendant was 
operating the motor truck, east on v/est Division street, de- 
livering pot plants to certain customers of defendant, plain- 
tiff's intestate and several other boys in going to their homes 
from school, just before the time of the accident, were riding 
in a horse-drawn truck wagon which was being driven west on 


C* ?s 


West Division street. West Division street extends east and 
west and Jforth Hermitage avenue north and south, Tlie latter 
street does not, however, cross West Diviaion street but r.xna 
soutii therefrom. Two or three of the boys got off tae wagon at 
North pr>.ulina street about a block east of the scene of the 
accident. Deceased and two other boys remained on the wagon 
until it reached North Hermitage avenue. Deceased get off at a 
point opposite to Pnd a short distDice weal of the west line of 
North Hermitage avenue and was proceeding in a southeasterly 
direction to the south side of T)ivision street vrhen he wss 
struck by the east bound motor truck. The accident happened at 
about 12 o'clock noon. The evidence tends to sho^/ that the ac- 
cident occurred in a closely built up business district; that 
there are two schools located in the neighborhood, one situated 
about two blocks west and the other about twc or three blocks 
east of Heraiitage avenue and that at the time and near the 
place of the accident there were numbers of echool children on 
and about the streets and sidewalks. Three of the boys, in- 
cluding plaintiff's intestate, started across West Di*ision 
street to the south side thereof, and certain testimony is to 
the effect that at this time the motor truck was about five 
doors west of Heriaitage avenue and that plaintiff's intestate 
as he crossed the street looked toward the west. 

Two street car tracks are laid down on West Divi- 
sion street, the south one of which was known as the east-bound 
track. After the accident deceased lay between this track pnd 
the south curb on Division street, at a point opposite a milk 
depot located on the southeast corner of Division street and 
Hermitage avenue. 

One Gorden, a teamster, who appears to have no in- 

!S£ift]>9C. ^ 


tereat in the case, testified that tixe autcanobile was, at and 

just before the time of tJae accident, moving at a speed of from 

20 to 25 miles an hour; that no horn was blown nor signal given 

before the boy was struck. This witness and other witnesses 

testified that the motor truck stopped, after the accident, at 

an elevated railway station which wps located about five lots 

or stores east of the point where the accident occurred. 

Albert Krefta in testifying said: 

■l^yself and two other boys get off at l-aulina street. 
Pour boys were left on the wagon, and one was John Steinert, 
After we got off we stood on the street w&iting for the boy. 
Czerniak, Gorski and then Johnny Steinert got off. The wagon 
at tnie time passed the west of Eer;-;ita£e, He held liircself 
on the ?/agon and he fell on his knees to get off. lie went 
southeast toward tue south ijide of Division street. Then 
somebody from the 'L' station hollered 'Hey,' and ne looked 
at the wagon, ana when the autcmooile was coaing' it just 
Struck him on the side and rolled him over." 

John Gorski testified that: 

"The wagon was driving west on the car track. Wnen 
we came Up i.o Vaiilina street, three boys got off, I 3tpyed 
on until we reached Hermitage. liarry Czerniak and johnny 
Steinert were on the wagon as we came up to Hennitage. In 
front of Schultae's milk depot, Harry Czerniak helped Joi-mny 
get off, I crossed the street going south, 'Owards the south 
side'^alk. Harry Czerniak nnd johnny Steinert cross the street 
going south ahead of me. They were walking together. Harry 
Czerhiak crossed the street sooner than johnny Steinert did. 
At the time John Steinert got off of that truck he f«ced west. 
The horses were trotting along. ^SThen I first saw it, the au- 
tomobile was by vuravchick's saloon. John Steinert was going 
down the eastbound track, I did not hear any horn or warning 
from this automobile. It traveled about 20 miles an hour. It 
struck Johnny Steinert; the front part. It stopped under the 
'L' station on the north side of Division street. It did not 
•low down before it hit John," 

John Sachs, who kept a paper stand on the corner of 
West Bivision street and North Hermitage avenue, testified that 
he saw the motor truck going east on West Division street and 
that it "was running fast." 

Witnesses who testified for the defendant, including 
the driver of the motor truck, stated tiiat at and before the time 
of the accident the motor truck was being driven at a speed of from 


•'!: ^nJ i . 

7 to 12 miles an hour. Several witnesses testified that the 
EiOocr truck stopped at a distance cf 100 or more feet east of 
the place where deceased was struck, and it is a fair argunent 
that the truck must have teen .Tioving at a higiier rate of speed 
tijAn tnat testiiiea to by defendant's witnesses, else the truck 
could and would have been stepped at a iioint nearer to the place 
where the accident happened. There does not seeiii to be any de- 
nial of tiie fact that the nfcighborhood waere xne accident oc- 
curred was closely built up and that acnool children were at 
the time traveling upon tne street and sidewalks. If the tes- 
timony of certain of plaintiff's ^Titnesses be true, tiia-t, de- 
fendant's employe was driving the aotor trsACk at a fast rat<^ cf 
speed, frojij 20 to 25 miles an hour, at a street intersection 
where numbers of children in ^^eturning from school were using 
the streets and sidewalks, then the ji'.ry were warranted in find- 
ing the defendant guilty cf negligence. 

The trial court did ni-t err in refusing tc direct 
a verdict for defendant on the theory thp t the decFPsed was 
guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Deceased 
was a boy between 10 and 11 years of sge, in good health and, 
80 far as the evidence shows, of ordinary intelligence; he had 
a legal right to use the public streets in any manner compatible 
with tne exercise on his part, in view of his and of all 
the attending circumstances, of due care and caution for his own 
•afety. Evidence in the record tends to show that he was struck 
•t a point nearly opposite the southeast corner of Hermitage ave- 
nue and West Division street, that is, at or very close to the 
east cross-walk of Division street. There is a sharp conflict 
in the evidence as to just where the automobile was at the .uoment 
Iteeased got off the wagon. There is evidence .,/hicli tends to show 

'>'-. Ifi".- 

that the raotor truck driver had an unobstructed opportunity to 
see the boys as they left the wagon in sufficient time tc pre- 
vent the accident 'vhich occuri (-^-d. When this pvldence is con- 
sidered in connection ^ith that cf the high rats of speed at 
•which Tvitnssses testified the motor truck ^Tas moving, the age of 
deceased and all the other facte and circumstances of the case, we 
cannot say that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence 
as a matter of law. vvhether he was or was not guilty of negligence 
was a question which was properly aubiaitted by tne trial JuJ^e to 
the jury. Here we have the caee of the participants in the 
collision moving toward each otner at nearly right anglus on a 
public street in a crowded neighborhood, one, a mature wan oper- 
ating a high-powered and dangerous vehicle; the other a ten year 
old boy proceeding across the street en iiis way from school to 

his nome. There is a conflict in the evidence as to the manner 

in vhicii the vehicle was being operated before / /vba struck. 

The C3se presents facts which were peculiarly proper for the con- 
sideration of the jury, which under the law was alone empowered 
to decide vmether either of the pprsons directly involved in the 
accident was guilty of negligence. 

In deciding the case of Hackett v. Chicago City Rai> 
wa y Coir:pg;ny , 235 111. 116, the Supre/te Court said: 

"Here several hundred school children, i;any of 
thexn but six year a of yge, had Just been freed from the 
restraints of the achocl rocxo. Any man of ordinary in- 
telligence knows that cuildren are then i-nore to run and 
play in heedless glee than under ordinary circuiu stances, and 
that wnil e so doing they wiil pay less attention to thrir 
iioicediate surroundings, and exercise leas discretion, than 
they coTiomonly do. The appellant was chargeable with this 
knowledge, and that being true, it was for the jury to say 
whether it was guilty of negligence in propelling the car 
at the rate of speed at which it traveled, and in failing, 
by its iijotoriaaii, to have the brake-cVxain so wovmd up ^^ that 
the brake could be instantly applied if necessity for stopping 
the car or lessening its speed arose." 

We think the language of the above opinion is 

strikingly p.pplicubie to the rrc-sent caae. In determining the 
question cf w>i ether deceased vyaa in the exercise of proper care 
for his own safety, it v/aa tho 'luty of the .jury \:o ta.Xe irto 
consideration the fact of his age and exx-erience, together 
with nil oti\er factors in the c^se. Illinoia Iron an d Metal Go. 
T. v/eber . 196 111. 526. 

It may well be that deceased was momentarily confused 
by the appi'oach of the autoriiobile and the hallooing of persons 
from the sidewalk, one fact in tne case seoits, however, certain, 
and that ia that any man cf ordinary intelligence weald expect 
a boy, under sLailar circuinstancos, tv- act just as deceased 
did act at the tii^a of the accident, and a proper regard for 
hunian safety would have ii^pressed the driver of the Tiotor truck 
with knO'Tl edge of the likelihood of the happening of an accident 
such as did occur unless he icept his car under proper control. 
Stack , Ad^. v. T he Last -o tr Lcuis & Suburban RailvTay Cc . , 245 
111. 306. 

It is saici that the coui't erred in overruling de- 
fendant's uiotion in arrest of judt^ent, for the reason, as as- 
serted, that the declaration fails to allege facts from miloii an 
inference amy be drawn that t^ie action was Drought witiiin one 
year frcuj the date cf the death of plaintiff's intestate. There 
is no merit in chis point. The declaration alleged tuat the ac- 
cident happened on the 8th day of Tay, 1917, and by examination 
of the I'ecord ?rhich will be made for the purpose of affir.'sing the 
judgment, it appears that the suit was begun on the first day of 
November, 1917, It was the duty of the trial court to take 
judicial notice cf its own records, from which it appears that 
the suit was begun in apt time, The statute upon which the de- 
fendant relies does make the bringing of the action within one 

year h. condition precedent to cixa maintenance of tne aciion. The 
dsciar&tion in tne present case ancjs aiiow tixat the action was 
brought witi'iin tiie year prescribed by tlio statute, "'he cases of 
ijellie Carl in , Adnr, v, The. Peerless O p , a X,ifh t ^o. . 3S5 ill, 142; 
Hartra^ , Aduur . v. Cnicago '-'y .?« '^'^ «» -^'^ m« App. 38?., and Gold - 
stein , Adxnr . v. Cliicago pity F v , Co . , 286 111. 297, do not sus- 
tain the contention of the defendant. Not in any of these cases, 
froiL the declaratlcns or by f?otB in V^e records of -Thich the 
ccurts cculd taks juvlicial notice, did it appear th.-^ t the suits 
had been beg'on riithin r?. year, 

A first ana mam contention ci defendant is that 
the trial court erred m excluding from the fvidence a portion of 
a verdict of a coroner's juiy, Ccunsei rxf^ve fi=.vujcd us with an 
elaborate brief touching a question whic is definitely set et 
rest by the decision of the Supreme -ccurt in the cse cf ovie - 
g<-l 1 8 Fcuse gurni aiding Co, v. Industrial Coflt-xissicn o f 111 inois , 
288 111 , 422. In deciding that case the court said: 

"For almost thirty years, as already indic^ited, 
this court has held that the verdict of the ecronef's jury 
was adjiissible eitner for the plaintiff or tiie defenaant in 
a civil suit for the purpose of snowing prima fncie seine 
fact or facts found by the jury and appearing on the face 
of the inquest, ^vhen the proofs of such fact cr frets is 
material to some issue in the civil suit, 

"The court is of the opinion that it should be no 
longer the policy of thie st^te and the holding of this court 
that a norcnfr's verdict or inouest should be adsassible as 
evidence in civil suits frr the purpose cf establishing per- 
sonal liability agf'inst any individual in cases -hTe the 
death of any person is chars-ced or to establisii a defense to 
such a suit, or for the purpose cf establishing other issues 
between private litigants of the nature inoicated in tiie cases 
just reviewed. Therefore all of tne foregoing cases, and all 
other cases of this court containing sijLil&r li-.l dings, are as 
to Eucii jficldings, expressly overruled," 

The trial court cofiiir-itted no error, except as against 

the plaintiff, in tnis particular. 

The judgment of the Suj erior court is affirmed. 


105 - 25356 

wignajll-moorjS company, 

a corporation. 

Defendant in Efror, 


a corporation. 

Plaintiff irf Error. 


2161. A. 643 


The defendant seeks by this writ of error to re- 
verse a judgment entered in the Superior court of Cook County 
in favor cf plaintiff for $1112.89. 

The declaration filed by plaintiff in the caus« al- 
leged in subatanoe tliat the defenoant through oareleaaness and 
negligence had failed to safely and securely carry and deliver 
to plaintiff 392 barrels of grapes which had been delivered 
to defendant at Kew York City on Dececiber Id, 1914, for trans- 
portaticn to Chicago, Illinois, and that defendant did not carry 
the grapes to Chicogo within a reasonable time* 

Subsequent to the filing of the original declara- 
tion an amended declaration was filed, in which it was alleged 
that on December 12, 1914, the E. L. Hasler Company delivered to 
defendant 392 barrels of grapes to be safely and securely car- 
ried by defendant from Few York City to Chicago; that the '», L. 
Hasler Company on June I, 1916, had assigned all of its right, 
title and interest in the alleged cause of action to Wignall- 
Koore Company, the plaintiff. The amended declaration in other 
particulars ia substantially the same as the original declaration, 

A general and special deoaurrer filed to the amended 
declaration was overruled. The defendant filed a plea of the 
general issue and also a plea denying the asaignaient to plaintiff. 

%j> -i.' 

On the trial it was stipulated Toy the parties that the 
grapes were dellTcred to defendant at Few York and that a hill of 
lading Tfas issued by defendant by its f^gent at Long Book, N. J,, 
dated December 12, 1914, which showed receipt by defendant of 392 
barrels of imported grapes which had been taken from the cargo of 
S. 3. Brittania, 

EYidence introduced on the trial tends to prove that 
the grapes were shipped from Spain on the Steactship Brittania. but 
it does not appear when tney arrived at Long Dock, K, J., or new 
York City, nor does the evidence disclose what, if eny, care was 
exercised for the protection of the grapes after they were un- 
loaded from the steamship and before they were delivered tc the 
defendant for transportation to Chicago; nor was it shown what the 
temperature 'tos at any time prior to the arrival of the goods at 
Chi cago , 

Albert Peterson, testifying for plaintiff, said that 

he was superintendent for the Railway Terminal and Warehouse Ccm- 

pany; that the grapes in question were received and examined by 

him at Chicago; that he found some of the grapes frosted; that he 

e3»fflined ten broken kegs; that the "headJ were broken in and 

grapes exposed. ))on't reuieoiber whether staves were broken, but 

heads were, at It-ast, and grapes were exposed and kegs had to be 

reooopered;» that at the time he made the exatfiination the grapes 

were in a warehouse; that the witness remeiubered that it was zero 

weather when the car which contained the grapes was received at 

the warehouse. ?rom the teatimony fcf this and other witnesses there 

is substantial evidence tending to prove that the grapes were in a 

deteriorated condition at the time they were received at a warehouse 
in Chicago. 

The suit was brought under the Carraack Amendment to 

the Interstate Commerce Act, Wliile it is alleged in the declara- 
tion that the gxapea wete delayed en route, it is apparent from 
an cxaminntion of the teetimony that plaintiff sought tc render 
the initial carrier liable on the theory that the gocde were 
frozen during transit from Kew York City to Chicago. The record 
contains no eridence aside from the recitals of the bill of lad- 
ing ae to the condition of the goods when they were received by 
the defendant for transportation to Chicago, The bill of lading 
acknowledged receipt of the grapes "in apparent good order, ex- 
cept as noted (c^ntents and condition of contents of pacVages 
unknown.)" It is asserted by plaintiff that this recital in the 
bin of lading has repeatedly been held to amount to prima fncie 
proof of the good condition of the ccmmcdity wh«=^n received by the 
carrier. '7e are to determine, then, on the record before us 
whether the recital in the bill of lading that the gooda were 
received "in apparent good order, except aa noted," etc., does 
as a matter of law establish prima facie proof of the good con- 
dition of tiie grapes at tae tuae tney were received "oy defendant, 
notwithstanding the fact that the bill of lading recites that 
the contents and the condition of the contents of the package* 
which contained the grapes were unknown tc it. 

There are several decided cases which hold thsrt 
where goods are delivered in good condition to a carrier for 
transportation and at* thereafter delivi red to a eonaignee in a 
deteriorated state, these facts constitute n prima facie right 
of recovery ngninst the carrier. 

The cases of Owen v, >T. C. By. Co ., No. 24407 Illi- 
nois Appellate Court, First District (not yet reported); Southern 
2Z» i^o. v. lettit , 257 :s!'ed. 663, and Galla gher v. G. T. v/. Ry, Co », 
207 III, App, 316, are relied upon by plaintiff. These cases 
when examined, notwithstanding certain expressions therein, will 

not be found to support the contention of plaintiff, in none of 

them waa it held that a recital in a bill of lading such as that 

under consideration was in and of itself sufficient tc establish 

prijca facie proof of the good oondition of the goods received by 

the carrier. 

In its opinion in the } ettlt case sup re. the court 


•iJot only did the bill of lading acknowledge the 
receipt of the shirncert 'in ppparent j^cod order, ^ » * which 
said corcppny agrees to carry to its usual place of delivery 
at 8«id destination,' but plaintiff had given affirmative 
oral testimony tending to show, not only that the cotton was 
in good Shipping condition when received by the carrier, and 
free from fire, but that it had been ac free for acre than 
five days before," 

The question under consideration here was not decided 
in the Owen case. It was held in that case that where any doubt 
arose as to the proper meaning or construction of the language 
used in a bill of lading, the language used should be construed 
more strongly against the carrier "because its officers or agent 
prepared the instrument," Ihile certain language in the opinion 
in the Gallagher case seems to support the position of plaintiff, 
that case is not, on its facta, an authority in its favor. 

In the case of Chicag o ^ A? ton R, K, Co_. v, ]^enja-;iin , 
63 ill. 283, it was held that a carrier's receipt for goods "in ap- 
parent good order" did not relieve a consignor frora proof of their 
condition at the time of their delivery tc the carrier; and in the 
ease of rrUlf coast & 3. 7, Rjr, C£, v. Holder, 30 3. W. 383. the 
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas said: 

"The words, 'in apparent good order,* in the bill of l?iding 
'•fer only to tae external, apparent condition of the goods, and 
such words create no contract with reference to the condition of 
the contents of the packages, bales, boxes, etc." 

In the latter, as in the instant case, no proof was 

made as to the condition of the property when delivered tc the 

initial carrier, nor that the damage resulted after its delivery 


for trarspcrtnticn. As stated a^bove, the record before u8 is 
barren of any prccf with respect to the condition of the grapes 
from the time they were shipped at Spain for transportatien to 
Kew Ycrk City, until they nrrlTed at Chicago. 

Clearly, it ^culd be unreasonable and unjust to hold 
the initial carrier liable for such deterioration, if any, as 
existed in the gocdB at the time cf their ehipment at Bpain or 
which might have cccurred during transit to jfew Ycr?*; City, and 
it is equally clear that no sound reason can be offered in sup- 
port of the contention that a recital in a bill of lading such as 
that above referred to is In and of itaelf sufficient to charge 
the initial cerrier ^rith knowledge of the actual condition of the 
goods, notwithstanding an express affirmation in the bill that 
the carrier had no such knowl edge. As atnt^d in the Polder case 
supra , thfi rule has no application ^here the goods are "shipped 
in boxes, packa^ies, etc,;* and they are not subj f>ct to inspection 
by the crrrier. 

In Aarierioan aiid English Encyo, of Law, (2nd ed.) vol. 
5, p. 355, it 13 said: 

"The rule as to the burderi of proof in an action 
against a carrier fcr less or injury to gccds is thst the 
plaintiff ia first bound to ahov/ aff irjaxatively a receipt of 
tfc.e goods, in good order, by the carrier. There is lic pre- 
sumption that the goods were in good orier 'vhsn received by 
the carrier," 

Leonard Seed Co. v. C. C, C. & iit, L. Sy. Co ., 162 111. App. 190. 

In Jean , Garrison & Co, v. Fla^g . SO IT. Y, Supp, ii89, 

it was held that: 

"The bill of lading given by cnrrier to shipper re- 
cites that th«? goods, v/hon received at T^ast St. louis by the 
carrier, were 'in apparent good order, except as noted, con- 
tents and condition of contents of packages unknowi,' This 
was no more than a atfitement that the ppckP^:es apparently -were 
in good order, and, when taken in connection with the express 
disavowal of any knowledge of the contents or cci ('xtion, cannot 
be he5 d to mean more tha>i that the excernal .^ppearnnce of the 
packages when shipped was good. It would be unreasonp.Lle to 
hold that an aokno^rt-cdgment of the good condition of the mer- 

chandiae was to be presumed from the mere delivery of & bill of 
lading containing such eapreesions, " 

The burden rested upon the plaintiff to prove his 
oaae by a pre^ onderance of the evidence. It wns therefore Incumbent 
upcr it tc prove the good condition of the grapes at th*» time the 
initial carrier received them at New York City. Tn tlis the plain- 
tiff failed. It relies solely upon the recitals of the bill of 
lading, and, as stated, it is our opinion that no reasonable 
inferences c.-m be drawn therefroiP th?^t the defendant knew, or that 
it intended to aasuoie knowledge of the condition of the goods which 
were enclosed in barrels or kegs. While this question does not 
seoa to have been definitely deterrrined by the ccurte of review of 
this State, the cases pbove referred to snd others tc fthich our 
attention has been directed by counsel for defendant in^Jieate 
that the trend of Authority is opposed to the contention cf the 

In view of what has been said it will ' ot be necessary 
for U3 to determine other questions presented in briefs of counsel. 
The defendant introduced no evidence on the triril nnd at the close 
of the plaintiff's case the court, at the request of plaintiff, 
instructed the jury to find the issues for plaintiff. In this the 
court erred, as the plaintiff had f«tiled to offer sufficient evl- 
dfcnoe to establish that the grapes were in good conlltion at ths 
time tjoey were received by the initial carrier for tranaportation 
to Chicago. However, there is some evidence introduced which 
tentte to prove a dajsaged and broken condition of the barrels or 
kegs in which the grapes were enclosed at the time they were de- 
livered at Chicago, Bxid that the temperature was well below the 
freeaing point at this time, Whether the elleged frozen ccnditioa 
of the grapes resulted from these facts was a question v/hich should 
^Ve been auboriitted by the trial Judge tc the jury. 

The judgjnent of the Superior court will be reversed 

■'■9 XWO! 

at* d the cause remanded to the.t court for a new trial. 

.iOI •«!k' 

121 - 25375 

lEoiLj; or taE statl oj iLiiiiOia, 

ipef endant in jError, 

3Ai;Y BSL?'I0R15, alias iMlO AliasiHA 

Plaintiff jjm irror. ' ,(, 



216 I.A. 64 3 


Luclo J issina was nrcftsted. upon a warrant issued 
on 8 oemplaint filed in the runicippl court of (Chicago on tiie 
24th day of July, 1919, This complaint autyioriaed the arrest of 
Samy Belfiore, "aliP.a Licio rissinn," for falsely pretending 
that a c«rtairi tan}? check wa? a srood and valid check. The war- 
rant or capiaa which ^m.» issued upon this complaint authorised 
the arreat of 3aiay Belfiore to answer to the ohar^e of "drawing 
checks "Hxth intent to defraud," etc. 'I'he judf.z-ient of the court 
waa to the effect that "aamy Belfiore. alias Lucio jkieaina, is 
guilty of the crioiinsl offenae of drawing checks v/ith intent to 
defraud," and the defendant was sentenced to the Bouse of Correc- 
tion for 30 days and to pay a fine of $250 and costs of the suit. 

The evidence sriows thai the true n&iae of the defend- 
ant is Lucie Uissina snd that he, for some years before his ar- 
rest, had been engaged in the flour business at 1818 i ilton ave- 
nue, Chicago; that 3amy Belfiore, the person named in the com- 
plaint and warrant, is not the defendant but is a r ?TSon -Uxo 
was employed by him; that Belfiore left the «M(iployrf.ent cf de- 
fendant on July 7, 1919, at which tiae he had paeeed a nuaiber of 
worthless checks signed by himself, 

Leo larker, an officer of the Acme Killing Company, 
testified that he was well acquainted witii ]^.issina, the defend- 
ant, and also with jselfiore; that Belfiore on the last mentioned 



^ • JL'x • jk- w^ 

date dellYered a check to the wltneia drawn on the central Truat 
Company of Illinois, ^hich was returned to the witneee unpaid for 
tJxe reason thet *Belfior« had no money in the bank to pay it;* 
that Belfiore had purchased $230 worth of flour of the Acme Mill- 
ing company, in payment for which the worthleas check waa given. 

Ed Noyak, a witness, testified that the defendant 
presented to him a check for ^77 in payment for groceries; that 
the hank refused to pay thf check "because it waa no good,* This 
is the check for passing which the prosecution was begun against 
the defendant . 

A cashier for the i^ovak Cooipany testified tnat she 
waa •pretty sure" that the defendant waa the man who she saw 
sign the check. 

Defendant testified that his name was Luoio |,,i8Sina; 
that the officer idio served the warrant arrested him aa Sammy 
Bel fi ore? that Belf Aor« had passed a number of bad checks on July 
7, 1917, and that he had left the defendant, taking witn him 
|40C» the property of defendant, which he, Belfiors, had collected. 
Defendant identified the signature of 3ai!^ Belfiore en the check 
^ich was received by the rovak Coinp?»ny, and denied that he ever 
had anything tc dc with it, "I never saw it and never had it in 
By hands, i never was in Novak's store in my life. I never 
bought any gooda in Novak'a store in my life." 

tfhile there is a direct contradiction in tiie testimony, 
we think the evidence offered on ber^lf of the defendant was so 
convincing in ch- racter as to wBri«.nt a reversal of the judgment. 

It is undisputed that the defcnaant for sosie years 
had been doing business in Chicago and that he had an account 
with the Central Trust Company, in which bank Belfiore also 
Icept an account; that the bank had closed Belfiore's account for 


JtnBfl 9 

the reason that "he had isidued so oiany bad checks against it." 

H, J, Grifliia, an officer of the Acme Shilling Company. 

testified that the cheoJc delivered to that company by Belfiore, 

and upon which payi^ent w&» refused by the Central Trust Coispany, 

was filled In by one of the men employed in tiis office of the 

Acme iiilllng Company and that it was there signed by Balfiore. 

There seems to be no dispute in the record that 

Balfiore was disaonest; that he had passed worthless checks on 

several persons fcr considerable amounts and that among his Tic- 

tins wae the defendant, who appears to have been, bc far as the 

evidence >iuq:ib, a reputable business man. It ia shown by the 

eviriRnce that ;!:elfiorc had defi-audeu otJier persons tliHn/'''Ovak 

Cocip? ny en the very uay that he hfid delivered to that ooit.pany 
the vortLless cJieck and tliat all of the bad checks were in pre- 
cisely tht saiue haii^jwriting. In view of the positive teatixaony 
cf ir, CrtaiCi we are inclined to believe that the witness for 
the prosecution who stated that she was *'pretty sure** that she 
saw the defendant sign the check upon whicu the prosecution was 
based, was mistaken, and tnet the witnesses for the prosecution 
had in good faith, no doubt, confused defendant's identity with 
that cf Self lore, his employe, in any event, the warrant au- 
thorized the arrest of Balfiore and the trial court had no 
jurisdiction on this warrant to enter judgmmt against the de- 

The judgiaent of the j/unlcipal court will therefore 
be reversed. 


, 'i'iSi"i'9y 

I*i8 - 25382 


App ell ee , 


COlflPATTY", n corrorft^ion, 



216I.A. 643 

K?^. jtjsTicT" lyw^rw. btiivi^rt) thit opiwioyr oy titp cout?t. 

The defenriant seeks by this appeal to rf^verse » 
judgment entered against it in the l«unicipal court of Chicago 
and in favor of plsintiff for ^115,55. The case v/aa tried by 
the court witixout a jury. 

For tne defendaat it is insisted that the jud(i?picnt 
should be reversed for the reaaoiB, as urtjed, that the plaintiff 
failed ^o prov« hi a case by a preponderance of the evidence 
ana that the plaintiff could not recover for work done in 
violation of specific instructions. 

It appears from a statement of facta in the ab- 
stract of record that the plaintiff had performed wagon rejair 
work for the defendant for several months prior to t)ecember 
4, 1917; that prior to this date a driver e^nployed by defendant 
delivered a wanton beloni.:infc to it to plaintiff for certain re- 
pair work, which was performed by plaintiff. Flaintiff tpsti- 
fied that he knew the driver who brour^ht th'^ wEtgrn to him; 
that he afterwards saw the wagon several times on the public 
streets loaded with beer; that it waa i-laintiff's custom to 
render to defendant aaontiily statements for work and material 
furnished it, and that the defendant had never aade any con- 
plaint as to the work or material or charges therefor until 
after the completion of the work on the wagon in question on 
December 4, 1917; that plaintiff on December 6, 1917, received 

payiaent on a bill rendered to defendant for the l^overo'ber account, 
whici. did not include the claim sued upon; that on the latter 
date he was directed to dc no further work for '.he defendant ex- 
cept upon ^jrritten order; that after the work on the wagon was 
completed defendant sent one of its drivers for the wagon and 
that it was delivered to hiiE and taken to defendant's brewery. 
The pr^aiclent of defendant testified that he re- 
ceived the bill for the work performed on the wagon on January 1, 
191t; that on r>^c«aber «, 1917, he told plaintiff to do no further 
work on hehnlf of defendant until he, plaintif, reofiived a writ- 
ten order therpfcr. 

Thf evidence shows that the plaintiff's claim was 
for work which the plaintiff ^^ays was performed prior to Ueceraber 
4, 3 91'^, The evidence offered on behalf of defendant is to the 
eff t-TCt that the direction to th£^ plaintiff tc dc no further rjork 
for defendant excapt upon v^ritten order wae given on Dececiber 6, 
1917, two days 9ft er the completion of tne (f/ork which the dffend- 
qint now aaasrts was unauthorized. 3hile i* is true that the 
evidence shows th-^t the bill for the work in question was not 
rendered until Janu?»ry 1, 1918, this fact in no way tends to con- 
trsdict what seerca to be a proven fnct in the case, that the work 
en the wagon waa co>%pl eted before the defendant gave notice to 
the plaintiff not to perform further j»ork for it except on written 

A witness for defendant testified that he took the 
wagon tc plaintiff's shop; that he saw "a man in the ahop;* 
th»t he told him to fix the top of the wagon, "but not unti" 
lie stiall receive an order froo; the brewery." The evidence does 
not show that the directions given by this witness to "a rcan 
in the shop* were communicated to the plaintiff, nor that 
plaintiff had any knowledge of any change in the usual metiiOds 

of doing work for and transacting buainesB with the defendant 
prior to Beceiaber 6, iyX7, 

It ia our opinion that the findings of the triul 
Judge were correct and the jud^ent will, therefore, be af- 

140 - 25394 


Defendant in Err^r, 

▼«. \ / 


Plaintiff in trror. 


i \' 


31y i.A« 643 


On August ZZt 1919, an inforaiation was filed in 
the municipal court of CMoago charging the defendant, J^rani 
Nikitas, with, unlawfully receiving two sacks of wiieat of the 
value of |5 which had been stolen from CLioago Junction Hail- 
roaA Company, "well knowing the same to have been unlswfully 
stolen," The trial court after hearing the testl. ony cf 
witnesses found the defendant guilty. In the Jud^ent of the 
court it is recited "that said I?rank Fikitas is guilty of the 
criminal offense of receiving stolen property knowing the same 
to have been stolen. « ♦ «" Defendant was thereupon sentenced 
to the House of Correction for three months and to pay a fine 
of |50 and costs of the suit. 

It is asserted for the defendant that in a pross- 
oution for receiving stolen property it is essential that the 
court or Jury, as the case may be, shall find th« value of the 
property stolen in the findings upon which the judgment is 
based. This contention is so clearly correct that no citation 
of eutjaority is really needed in its support. 

In the case of leople v. oVOcwd , 211 111, App, 
402, this court said: 

"Whenever the measure or kind of punishment is dependent 
upon the value of what has been taken, th« court or jury, as 
the case may be, must find that value as part of the verdict 
or finding; otherwise the conviction cannot be sustained. A 
finding of guilty 'in manner and fcnn as charged in the in- 
foracation,' is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 
the statute," 

3te Thompaon et al, v. People , 125 111. 256; peoyle of the Stgtc 
o£ IllinoiB T, Ellison, 185 111. App. 267, 

The case was tried in the l^unioipal court without 
a Jury, and neither in the findings of the court ncr in the 
Judgment entered thereon was any finding made as to the value of 
th« property which it was alleged the defendant had received. 
The judgment of the Municipal court must, therefore, be re- 
versed and the cause remanded. 


117 - 25371 


^3 1 

cy v„. 



Plaintiff in iSxrori ) 


vs. \ / ) 


CHICAGO ARENA COMPANY. ^ ^ ouwjv ouuft. x, 

a corporation* / i ^-i/^-r* •*.■* 

Def^dant in 75r/or. ) 2 1 6 I. A. 6 4 4 


This is an action fn trie case for daiaagea for in- 
juries suffered by plaintiff through the alleged negligence 
of defendant while she, ti:e plaintiff, was in the skating rinjc 
of defendant. 

The declaration is embraced within one count, and 
inter alia avers that plaintiff entered defendant'* rink after 
paying, the stated fe«, and while in the exercise of lue care and 
caution 'sm.a skating in *aid rink; that the duty of defendant was 
to use all care and caution for her protection; that neverthe- 
less defendant in this regard neglected its duty by negligently, 
and in violation of it a own rules, while such rules were being 
observed by plaintiff, permitting certain persons negligently, 
wilfully and with lack of sufficient car^ on the part of de- 
fendant's servants, to trip j%nd knock over plaintiff; and she 
•vers that by defendant's negligence and improper conduct de- 
fendant permitted plaintiff, while in the exerciae of all due 
•are and caution, to be knocked down and that through such care- 
lessness and negligence plsiintlff was thrown on the ice of the 
rink and sustained a broken leg to her damage, etc, 

«lule the cause v/ent to trial before a Jury, by 
•greecient of tl-ie parties the jury was withdrawn and the trial 
proceeded before the cou.rt. After hearing all of the proffered 


teatimony the court decided that plaintiff had failed to make a 
case entitling her to recover, and entered a finding for defend- 
ant and a judtni^ent of ni l capiat . Plaintiff being dissatisfied 
with the Judgment of the trial court brings the record here for 
review toy writ of error. 

Plaintiff* 8 narration of the occurrence is about as 
follows: That on January 24, 191b, sne and her brother, having 
paid the admittance fee, were skating around defendant*B rink; 
that two women were standing on the ice; that as plaintiff and 
her brother went to circls around them the two women turned and 
tripped the brother and one of the women fell and kicked plain- 
tiff; that the force of the kick lifted her bodily, she weighing 
13C pounds; that she came down with such force that she suffered 
a brol<en leg and was taken to the Elchael Reese hospital. Plain- 
tiff further testifitd that she was tcld by persons in authority 
of the manner in which she must conduct herself while skating, and 
had been told to keep skating or to keep off the ice; that she 
had been with a i>flrty when one of them stood on the ice and the 
guord asked him to skate or get off the ice. Vhen plaintiff was 
injured she was on the ice. She had seen guards ask persons to 
keep moving, and ordinarily the guards asked persons to keep 
uovlng when they were stanaing on that part of the ice wh(-re 
the accident to her occurred. 

Plaintiff offered to prove that one of the officials 
of the defendant told her after the accident and while she was 
waiting for the doctor to coiae, that defendant would take care of 
lier, but on objection tills proof was not heard, llaintiff had 
been skating about an hour and a half before the accident happened. 
Durinp; that time she was on and off the ice; she would skate and 
th«a rest and then return to skate. She was a good skater and her 

brother was an acccuapliahed akater. When ahe first saw the 
women with whom they collided they were standing atill. she 
•aw theca start towards her and her broth#]fhand at tiiat tiae 
they bumped against her brother. It also appeared from the 
evidence that the Arena was brilliantly lighted and that 
there were twelve guards and instructors on the ice all the 
time. The surface of the ice was without obstruction. There 
was a epace in the middle uiarked off by two concentric lines 
painted in the ice. These lines were about two feet apart 
and inside these lines was a place 40 X 150 feet for fancy 
akating. Between thea<» line* persons on skates were permitted 
to stand and watch the fancy skating. Outside these lines was 
an oval space extending tc the seats on the sides of the rink, 
to the glass partition en the north an^5 to a oanvas wall on 
the south; in this outer oval the plain skating was done, a 
• treaia of skaters ,»11 moving in one direction. 

It appears that the two women who oauaed the acci- 
dent were seen by a guard to start from the space between tne 
concentric lines just before the accident happened. When the 
guord saw the women start across the current of skater* he was 
about 25 feet away and he immediately started for th«m but be- 
fore he could reach them the accident happened. 

Plaintiff grounds her right to recovery on the 
claimed neglif^ence of defendant in not having sufficient guards 
«ixo were not engaged in giving skating lessons to take care of 
the crowd of about two thousand skaters, and that of the 12 
guards employed at that particular time IC were giving instruc- 
tions in skating to patrons. However, be this as it may, such 
wfcs not the proxinate cause of the accident, as it clearly ap- 
pears that the two women whose conduct precipitated the casual- 
ty were immediately observed by a guard to be proceeding in 

▼iolation of the rules when only 25 feet away and vithin almost 
aOHjentary reach of the ffuard. who immediately started toward 
them with the evident purpose of stopping tyiem from further 
Tielating the rules, but arrived too late at the spot where 
the accident occurred to prevent the collision and the resulting 
injury to plaintiff. 

From these facts it cannot fairly be said that the 
accident was in any way attributable to a lack of guards in the 
vicinity of the place where tiie accident occurred. In that large 
concourse of people, with all the 12 guards skating with patrons, 
few of them could be as near as 25 feet to any particular set 
of skaters. To hold that defendant was liable for the actions 
of the two women, who were proceeding in violation of defendant* • 
rules, would be tantamount to holding that defendant guaranteed 
the 3nf ety of every patron of its rink nnd w&a an insurer against 
the acts of every other patron whether willfiil or otiierwise. 

The accident was not occasioned by any faultJ^ con- 
struction of the rink or the maintenance of any obstacle which 
was calculated to trip a patron, and in this regard the case is 
clearly distinguishable from all the cases cited in plaintiff's 

In Stickel v. Riverview lark , 250 111, 452, the 
"Katzenjacriner" case, the plaintiff sought to leave other vise than 
by a chute, which was the only exit provided by the defendant; an 
attendant forced her to leave by the UBual route arid in so doing 
her leg was broken. All the court there held was that such act 
did not establish negligence per se ; nor, on the other hand, did 
it establish as matter of law that it was not negligence. In 
the "Katz en jammer* case the attendant forced the plaintiff to 
I her exit in a certain tay, which resulted disastrously; but 


the Aocident to plaintiff be traced. 

In achofield v. Wood , 49 K, E, 636, a rail was not 
strong enough to hold plaintiff and she was injured by reason 
of its glTing away; the court held that defendant oould not es- 
oaps llebility, if he vme negligent in the manner charged, on 
the ground that other persons may have contributed to the injury. 
In the cas'' at bar there was no defect of any aort, either actual 
or constructive. 

In Sharpless v . pantages, 172 ?ac, 384, the negligence 
consisted in defendant maintaining strips of carpet in a balcony 
aisle so that plaintiff was tripped and injured by reason of the 
fact tViat the carpet was loose; the negligence there being the 
maintaining of a carpet loosely laid which tripped a patron 
to his injury. 

In Cook V, i'iper , 79 ill. App. 291, the accident waa 
caused by the falling of a coke of ice from tne rear end of de- 
fendant's wagon; it was held that it was negligence for defend- 
ant not to put some guard on the wagon to protect persons upon 
the streets from injury by the falling from the wagon of cakes 
of ice, which i«*ien unguarded might naturally be expected. 

The other cases cited are as reaiily distingulshabla 
from the instant case. 

While it iq true, as st^tf^d In 3 chultg v. yrrt p sson 
_C . . 264 111 . 156, that the proxiaate cwuae of an injury is ordi- 
narily a question of fact for the jury to determine from a con- 
sideration of the attending facts anrl circuun stances, yet in this 
Wise the trial being by the court, the facts and the law were for 
tke court to determine, and we will assume that the court in the 
[! Mmclusion at which it arrived was of the opinion that reasonable 
■Inds covild not differ as to defendant not being guilty of the 

I Stfligence charged against it as the proximate cause of plaintiff* s 


Jon ffsr 


.-or* gno'rle 


:■:.•■ «ot1 

injury; at leaat we are of such opinion. 

As the accident is not attributable to any negligence 
charged cr proven agninst defendant, but aolely to the negligent 
conduct of the two women 93<ater» who collided with plsintiff and 
her brother, we see no reason for disturbing the judgment of the 
Superior court and it is therefore affirmed, 


f in 


124 - 25^78 11 / i / '' / / 

lOKRIS LAB]^ and ELI LAMd|, ) \ 

\ Appellees, I } \ 

▼ 8.\ 


/ 1 tie T.A. g4^ 


L'OKrib V/OLP, H^tH"^ WOLP^d ) 



This is sin undefended appeal, for the reason, as 
we suspect, that the controversy has ended and the questions 
at issue have thereby hecorae moot. 

The bill sought to enjrin defendants from carrying 
on business in competition with complainants at 7417 iiiSadison 
street. Forest lark, in Coolc County,' 

It appears that defendants i.'orris and Harry «olf 
prior to April, 1917, carried on business at 7343-45 ifadison 
street. Forest lark, and that Charley i^olf was associated with 
thea; that Harry and Charley enlisted one in the army and the 
other in the navy of this country during the late world war. 

The bill alleges that y.erris and Harry v/olf were 
operating a drygoodo store at 7343-45 i.adison street. Forest 
Park, under the name of "Wolf Brothers," and that the defendant 
Charl ey Wolf, their brother, was associated with tr.em in their 
business in the capacity of manager of salfisrcen; thot Iticrris and 
Harry '«;olf were owners of the real estate in which thp drygoode 
business was located, ns well at3 of b certain other piece of real 
•state numbered 7417 )k-adiscn street. Forest park, vrhlch was lo- 
cated within two blocks of the first described premises; that 
they are still such owners; that on June 5, 191fc, complainants 
purchased from Harry and Korris Hclf the drygoods business and 

good will thereof at tithe premises above described » paying $15,000 
therefor, and at the same time took a bill of sale therefor and a 
lease for the premises where the business was carried on, commenc- 
ing the first day of June, 1918, and ending on the 3oth day of 
April, 1923, at a rental therein reserved; that the gocd will of 
said ousiness is of great value; that in the bill of sale, signed 
by tiorris #olf for himself and as the attorney in fact of Harry 
Wolf, there was contained the following condition; 

ditional consideration for said transfer the esid i-Orris .-iiolf 
and Harry ?olf agree and undertake not to be interested in the 
tame line of business directly or indirectly in any way whatso- 
ever within a radius of two (2) square miles froEi tne present 
location. This restriction to be good durln*; the term of a 
leqse executed between the parties for a period of four years 
and eleven months frcra date with a five-year option. At the 
termination of the lease this clause ia to become inoperative," 

It wes further alleged that >»orris and Harry folf en- 
tered into a conspiracy with the defendant (Charley Wolf to ruin 
the business of coinplainants and with that end in view were about 
to open a drygoods business in the preiflises 7417 Madison street; 
that said business was to be conducted under the name of "Adolf's 
Dry Goods Store;* that defendants liarry and Morris Wolf were 
either directly or indirectly interested therein, the name of 
Charley Wolf being used merely as a cloak or subterfuge for the 
purpose of avoiding the covenant contained in the bill of sale 
above quoted; and it is charged that said Morris and Harry Wolf 
would maintain and operate said drygocds business at 7417 Ladison 
street, whicn is only one block fro;) the prfflnises where complain- 
ants operate the drygoods business which they bought from said two 
last named defendants, unless restrained by an injunction from so 
doing; that unless the defendants are restrained by an injunction 
from carrying out their said conspiracy complainajits' business 
will be largely reduced and partially destroyed; that auoh damages 

cannot be eatimated, and complainants 'wouid sustain irreparable 

Defendants answered* denying all the charges of con- 
spiracy alleged, and the cause was referred to a master to take 
proofs and report his finding of law and fact, which he did, 
recommending a decree- against defendant Charley '»olf restraining 
him from beinp; directly or indirectly interested in the some line 
of business conducted by oomplaino^nts at the pre^iises 7343-45 
Kedison street. Forest iark, or within a radius of two square 
miles of said preraises during the period covered by the lease exe- 
cuted by Harry and Morris ^olf as lessors to oomplainants as 

jiach of the ^olfs testified that the business at 

7417 Madison street was the business of the defendant Charley 

Volf "^ind that neither of them had any financial or other interest 

therein. The evidential facts which seeni to have influenced the 

master anit the chancellor in granting the decree were that iAorria 

and Harry '^olf were Charley's landlords and that they had/seen 

aiding their brother Charley in arranging the store for the trans- 
action of the drygoods business and that they were often seen 
around such etore. 

We think these surface appearances were insufficient 
to warrant an injunctional decree against the defendant Ciiarley 
Wolf in the face cf the Lestiroony of all the defendants in denial 
»nd the documentery proof in evidence. The bill of sale was mad* 
"by the defendants l^orris and harry #olf , The restrictive covenant 
therein recited the making of the lease between the parties and 
provided that such restrictive covenant should continue during the 
term of the lease, at the termination of which the clause was to 
become inoperative. 

The decree it illogical; it ia against the defendant 
Charley Wolf only, ^tho was not a party to the transaction betwee^i 
hie brothers and the ccuplfi-inants. If, as contertded.uorris and 
Harry a'olf were crrying on business in competition with complain- 
ants b.v the subterfuge of using the name of their brother Charley, 
and the business vras in fact their business, and not Charley volf's, 
then they might have been enjoined from carrying on such buainess 
in that way and by such means. 

Contracts in restriction of trade are tc be strictly 
construed, T nlcpt t v. Brockett , 5 111. Ayp. 6(; , As Charley '.'/olf 
was net a party in ffsct or by interpretation to the restrictive 
covenant in the bill of sale, he ia not in any "-imnner bound by it, 

Ve are at a less tt understand why jborria and Harry 
Wolf ;Join in this appeal, ae tiiey are in no way or xaanner affected 
by the decree, 

A case very similBr to the one at bar is Fubbard v. 
Miller , 27 :5;ioh, 14, where it was held thai a 6«le end agreercent 
made by e'. firm of two persons, one of whom pfterwards rent into 
the business alcne, and the other as a partner with a third per- 
son y/ho la nade a defendant, limited the Injunction as to such 
third person to prevent him simply from engajunf? i^ the business 
as n p»rtn<?r with either of the other defendants, but did not 
restrain hlro individually, gm-iert v. Hichflrdson , 44 rnn. 206; 
Harkinoon's Arpea ^: ! , 78 lenn, 196, 

So in this case, by analogy of reasoning, the utmost 
length to which a decree could proceed as against Charley Wolf 
would be to enjoin him from carrying on business in partnership 
with his brothers l^orris and Harry if it were to appear th^t the 
business was so being carried on. 

The decree of the superior court ia wron.p; end is 
therefore reversed and the cause is remanded. 


rt» 1 *jt© f r i • l m9tt)%b «> r?'A' 


r.t 0, 

•j'/.-f? ao- 

131 - 25385 


\ Defendant jtn Error, 

WILLIAM E. %CGVyER]^» Impleaded, 
etc., % 

pffiintlff in Error. 


216I.A. 644 


?"Ry 29, 191S, the defendant and one Elmer J, Daisey 
were indicted by a grand Jury in Crol: county for illegally voting 
in the 35th election precinct of the 21at ward of the City of 
Chicago at a p;enera1 election of aldermen in said city. The in- 
dictment sll Rges that Daiaey, without having a lawful ri4>J:it to 
Tote in said precinot| at aaid election, knowinigly and fraudulently 
did so, having been aidsd, abetted and persuaded thereto in his 
unlawful act by the defendant, \yilliRja JicGcveri*. 

At the triel the litete nolle pro&sfcd the indiotisent 
as to Daieey and he was then put upon the stand as the state's 
only witness. His testiciony substantially suppcrrted tne indictaient. 
He testified that he was a rooaser at the Astna hotel, kept by de- 
fendant ?^cGovern, and that he was importuned by j.ioGov«rn to register 
as a voter, notwithstanding the fact that he had not lived in the 
State one year, having come here from Akron, Ohio, in June, 1911; 
Ml of which he told KcGovern, who replied in effect that it made 
!■• difference; that J^oGovern gave hiro on a card the names of thoa« 
jfM whoHi he should vote, among them being; the name of laolay 
iHoyne. He testified that he did "go ov«r* and vote but he did 
»tt say where he went to vote. He did not testify that he voted 
;•• April 2, 191ii, in the 35th election precinct of the 21st ward 


^ f O 


in the City of Chicago, or on eny other day. 

JficooTern took the atand in hie own behalf and cate«> 
gorically denied every material atatemcnt made by naisey in his 
testimony. There wap no ntterapt made to iaipeach ?'cCOY«»rn«s 
character for truth "nd y^raoity and his testimony therefore 
stood before the oourt as much entitled to credence as that of 
DPisey, the self-confessed accompllct. There ims no other 
testimony, oral or dootirjentary. 

The Isw requires that eylr^enoe sufficient to convict 
of a crlii;inal offense must be such as convinces the mind of ;:uilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt. The denial by I'.cGovfirn of the neterial 
msttere testified to by juaisey, whc stands discredited "by bis own 
testimony, he having confessed tc having lieen guil ty of comiritting 
an unlawful act in voting somewhere without being a qualified 
voter or having the lethal ritJit to do so, is sufficient to raise 
a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court aa to rcGovern's 
guilt. Furthermore, the proceeding? was in laany other reetecte 
informal , 

Per the errors indicated the Judj^ent of the 
Criminal court is reversed and the cause remanded, 



132 - 25386 

P201-L?; 01? THF 8TATW CP 

gDefendant in irroif, 


WILI,IAJ,1 E. MC60VERH, Implei^ed. 
etc . , \ 

plaimtiff in Kj^or. 




) COOK cou:hty. 

^ 216I.A. 644 


This case is similnr to case general niunber 25365, 
opinion in which is coincirtently filed with this. The difference 
between this and case supra is that here the indictment was for 
illepolly voting on April 9, 1912, nt a general primary election 
of the DeEJOcratio party to ncrainate candidates under an act en- 
titled, "An Act to provide for the "olding of iri/Dsry Sections 
by lolitical parties, * etc., while in case supra , the indictment 
was for illegally vetinp at an aldeT-ianic election on April 2, 

There is no evidence in the record in this c:ise that 
Daiaey voted at the Democratic priroary election April 0, 1912, 
but the evidence ia that he voted at an aldermanic election on 
April 2, 1912, 

There being no evidence in the record proving the 
coBuaisaion of the criae charged in the indictiuent, the judgment 
of the Crijjiinal court is reversed and the CRuse is remanded, 


143 - 25397 


-/ ff ^h^ 


u I ^-- 

JO SET E J. ^)»COEirOR, 

\ Appell«e, I) 



Appellant/ ) 




.... 644 


On a trial before court and jury plaintiff had 
judgment for $500« the aioount of hie claim, and defendant 
prosecutes this appeal, .^eklng a reversal. 

At the time when it is olalnied the relation of at- 
torney and client vas estsblished between the parties to this 
litigation plaintiff resided at l *An8e, Michigan, and was a 
practicing attorney and also irobate Judge of Baraga County, 
Michigan. January 5, 1918, defendant, a resident of a suburb 
in tlie Yioinity of Chicago, was at L'Anse, Micnigan, where his 
nephew, John Jacksao, was confined in jail charged with the 
crime of murder, on a telephone message from a court bailiff 
plaintiff went tc the jail at L'Anse, where he was introduced 
to defendant by the bailiff. Defendant thereupon told plaintiff 
that he had come to see about the murder c«^8e, that he was the 
uncle of jacksxo and wanted to hire plaintiff to take care of 
Jaokszo*B case, showing plaintiff a letter from his benker, 
riaintiff said he was busy but would see him later in the day. 
It seems that defendant was later taken sick and informed plain- 
tiff that he wanted the trial of the case against his nephew 
continued, llaintiff prepared affidavits for a continuance, one 
of which was signed by defendant, which were presented in court on 

i^ "(4- 


the motion for a continuance, at wMch time defendant was pres- 
ent, riaintiff failed to procure continuance to the next 
ter* but succeeded in having the trial postponed one week. 
After this defendant requested plaintiff to defend Jackszo and 
do all he could for him, saying he would send his Chicago law- 
yer, a VT, Carpenter, (who ia one of the lavyyers on defendant's 
brief in thisf case) whom defendant vitid was a good lawyer, to 
help plaintiff. To this plaintiff indicated his assent. The 
trial took place and plaintiff and f r. Carpenter defended Jacksto. 
Carpenter evidently knew defendant had retained plaintiff to de- 
fend Jackszo, as witness the following telegram sent to plain- 
tiff in his firm name January 11, 1916: 

"fhcn will Jackszo case be tried'? Can you obtain a continu- 
ance? wlxat ^ill you charge for services? Is case prepared, 
witnesses investigated, etc.?" 

To which on the same day plaintiff replied: 

"I have Jackszo case well prepared, outlook favorable, ire- 
fer to arrange fee in person with you or Schatanue. Is Car- 
penter coming'? cannot obtain continuance. Case will comuience 
Vonday morning sure. Answer," 

Defendant under date of January 16, 1918, telegraphed 
plaintiff: "Vire my expense result of case. Was it postponed? 
Advise fully," 

prom the evidence there can be no doubt that plain- 
tiff was Knployed by defendant to defend his nephew Jackszo 
against a charge of murder, and that the undertaking of defend- 
ant in this regard was an original undertaking and not made in 
behalf of Jackszo although for his interest. The testimony of 
defendant to the contrary is shifty, far from frank, and is in 
its essence unconvincing. Defendant refused to pay any foe to 
plaintiff and rested such refusal upon the following, contained 
in a letter of plaintiff to defendant; 

Hmf hX*:-i. 


"I hereby release you from any obligation to pay a« 
any moneye as attorney for the defense of sai(5 respcndent 
(meaning Jsckazo) until we have agreed upon such terms as 
are aatiefactory to both of us," 

ilaintiff explains the foregoing in this way: De- 
fendant hesitated to sign an affidavit for continuance and plain- 
tiff thought he was afraid to do so; that defendant had giTen hiin 

a letter from his banker stating that he vas a man of means; that 

defendant did/know plaintiff, was undoubtedly a man of foreign 

birth and was in a strange country; that he thought perhaps de- 
fendant might thinJc that he, plaintiff, waa trying to "put sonie- 
Uiing over on him,^ because, as plaintiff said, "ItSany do;* that 
defendant might fear he was aignin^ a note or a promise to pay, 
and plaintiff wanted to be honest with him and let hira know that 
he did not rmnt to bind him to any particular price. 

It seems that defendant was expected to go to the 
trial, but for some unexplained reason best known to hi/naelf, 
he did not do so; therefore plaintiff had no opportunity to set- 
tle a fee with defendant; but plaintiff's employment was neither 
recalled nor cancelled. On the other hand, defendant sent li^r. 
Carpenter to assist plaintiff in the trial of the case. 

Under these circuiaatances tne relationship of at- 
torney and client existed, and there being no agreeroent for a 
specific fee, plaintiff waa entitled to recover under a quantum 
meru it for legal services rendered in the defense of defendant's 
nephew, jackszo. 

There is no evidence in this record from jackszo or 
any one else that plaintiff was retained by Jackszo to defend 
him. The defendant was the sole witness proffered in defense, 
and in the light of all the evidence of both the parties, and the 
telegrams and writings in the record, we ar« convinced that the 
jury might properly find that plaintiff was in the defense of 

.S-AiXiSG ■y^^ff. Pti?f* 

t x%o^; 



iim iah 

Jackazo acting at the instance and employment of defendant; tliat 
defendant's undertaking was not to pay jackszo*8 debt, but was 
an original undertaking and employment by defendant of plaintiff, 
and therefroM the law raises the obligation of defend&nt tc pay 
whatever plaintiff's servioes were reasonably worth« Plaintiff 
proved without contradiction that his services were reasonably 
worth the amoujit of the verdict and judgment. Defendant cannot 
defeat plaintiff's right to receive compensation because he 
failed to give plaintiff an opportunity to agree with him upon a 

There is in this record no error warranting a re- 
versal of the judgment of the County court and it ia therefore 

162 - 26416 I / /jfj ( 


Appellee, jt 

▼a. I 


AfiKAL mm umici^kt court 


Appellant. j S 1 U I. A. 64 5 

\ / 


This l8 an undefended appeal. As we have often 
said before ve repeat - the abstract of the record is the 
pleading of the party who brings the cause for review to this 
court, and frcm it must appear sufficient to support, if well 
taken, the errors assigned on the record. While the court will 
go to the record for Inforr^iation which will aid the affirsiance 
of a Judf3aent, it wl,ll net search the record for matters absent 
from the abstract which night be sufficient to work the reversal 
of » Judg) ent. The record before us is so scantily abstracted 
that it presents noUting for *ur review. <i^e recite the follow- 
ing from the abstract of the statutory record: *iltateaent of 
Claim, • "Liuamons," "Finding," "Judgment," "lotion for a 
new trial," "kotion in arrest of jud^aent," "1 rayer for aun 
appeal" to this court and allowance thereof. 

These recitations disclose no information regard- 
ing the nature of the action, the state of the pleadings, or the 
SMount of the Judgaent, which siatters should be nade to appear 
in an abstract of the statutory record. The fnct that the amount 
of the Judgment and the action of the court thereon in denying 
■•tions for a new trial and in arrest of Judgnent, are recited in 
the Btateraent of ff^cts lends no aid to th« abstract of the statu- 
^•ify record. The Judgment belongs in the record and not in ths 

1, ,?J<hii8'> 

?. i^B .A.idis; 

bill of exceptions or atatttnent of facto. Therefore, Judicially 

we know notning about the cauee of action, its noture, atat^^ of 

the pleadings, amount of the Judgrtent, or whether auoh Jud^ent 

i« predicated upon the finding of the court or the verdict of a 

Jury, Ae eaid in Stolm v, Nauphten , case general number 25160, 

in this court, opinion not yet reported: 

"It hae frequently been held that the abstract ia 
ttie pleading of the parties ftnd must show the record of the 
trial court that the court of review mny be so Infor^aei ae to 
what took place aa to be able tc judpe whether or not error 
was committed, «♦ T-Tot being Infonsed as to what the judgment 
Of the trial court waa, it will not be disturbed.* 

•fe alBO anid in Barber v, tjellish , 2(9 ill, App. 299: 

•"4»e will not gc to the record for inforwiHtion to re- 
verae a judgment which the defendant ahould have furniehed in 
the abstract, jaliuburj / v. :;eutBCh , 176 111. Apr. f'33; GriMa 
^» Gri^a , 204 ibid 160; joi^maon v. Waldman , ibid 190; leopjie 
''' Fl^'n^iga n, ibid 546; lieLor ij^ v. Hruby , 2c3 ibid ii( 6; 2 eorle 
'^' ii. ^iAy or'ihiA '49'^; KcGovern v. City of Cuicago , ^L^ ibid 
139, • 

The abatract ia violative of rule 16 cf tills court, 
D^loh providea that a party bringing a cause to this court ahall 
furnish e complete abstract or abridgeoTient of the record. Where 
such abstract fail a to ao materially conforj?- to this rule aa not 
tc present for our review the errora assigned, the judgment ap- 
pealed from will be affirmed. 

T?e dc net, however, discover from an exwiiination of 
th«» record that there ia any error either of law or procedure whidt 
would justify a reversal of the jud^^nent did the abstract suffi- 
ciently conform to rule 16 tc present the jnnttsra assigned for 
error to us for review. 

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Vunici- 
1 itt court is affirmed. 


198 - 25453 

^. / 


^JDefendant in |Brror, ) 



rlal^tiff.yin Error: 'j 2161. A. 845 


Defendants were oonvieted with others iinder an in- 
dictment for ft conaplrscy to effect a jail deliTery froia the 
Cook County Jail en Beptember 12, 1916. No question arising as 
to the sufficiency of tiie indictiaent it will not toe further 
noticed in this opinion. Upon a trial by Jury all the defend- 
ants were found guilty and, we assaiue, although not Judicially 
inforixied of the fact, were sentenced to some punisijment. The 
plaintiffs in error* are the only defendants convicted who arc 
seeking a review o^ the record in thia court. 

The proofs show ttiat on Septeuiber 12, 1916, a most 
daring and successful Jail delivery ^mis effected from the Cook 
County Jail of aoiae of the most hardened snd desperate oriniinals 
tljat could veil be gathered together in one Jail. Two of those 
who escaped were undf»r sentence of death for raurder and have 
since expiated their crimes upon the gallows, being recaptured; 
another was convicted of robbory with a deadly weapon, and de- 
fendant Frank kcErlane was charged with an assault with intent to 

It is arf;Ticd for reversal that there is a reasonable 
doubt of the defendants* guilt; tliat where there is conflicting 
evidence the Jury must be adequately instructed and the record 
■ust be free from material and substantial error; that the trial 


5«*<iii - 3«X 

Ju(ig« erroneously abridged the croaa-exaraination of one Killer, an 
accomplice, and made remarks prejudicial to defendants; that the 
sentence should have been an indeterminate one under the parole 
law of 1917 and that the sentence Tiolates the atate constitution, 
wJ-iicii provides that the penalty aliall be in proportion to the na- 
ture of the offense. 

m the condition of the abstract the record is not 
presented tc this court for review. As this court the Supretac 
court have often said, the abstract is the pleading of the parties 
and the court will not go to the record in search of material for 
a reversal of the judgment. There must appear froai the abstrpot 
itself matter sufficient to support the errors, or aojpae of theai, 
assigned upon the record; locking these el ern»»nt8 an af T iimance 
pro forma will follow. 

In no part of the abstract b<=fore us, neither in the 
coBifliOn law record nof in the bill of exceptions, is the Judgment 
made to appear. Its proper plnce is in the abstract of the coaunon 
law record, notwithstanding this feet, we will briefly review 
the merits of the cause and the errors assigned. 

It is true that the luajor portion of the testizaony 
regarding the forii^ing of the conspiracy was that of the accomplice 
killer; but every detail of its execution was substantiated by the 
testimony of other witnesses and by subsequent occurrences in the 
line of the conspiracy entered into, Christensen was to saw the 
bars and whfai they were sawed, Kempter, a deputy jailer and one of 
the conspirators indicted, was to unlock the doors under the pre- 
tense of taking a man from one cell to another so that he alight 
cover up emy connection with the escape. The bars were sawed and 
the saw that was used was brought intc the Jsil by Christensen. 
Ifciller conununicated a conversation he had with Christensen to 
•nother defendant, joe Joran, Christensen told Killer that the 

lock on the window had already been sawed and soaped. Ken)pter« 

the assistant jailer, was bribed* and arrangements had also been 

made by Joe SulllTan, another defendant, for an autoisobile to 

carry away the escaped prisoners after the broke out of the jail. 

As a part of the conspiracy it was arranged that the defendant 

kcKrlane was tc call K«apter, who was on watch that night, and 

that Keanpter was to tak<» T'c'^rlane from hia cell and put hlin in 

loran'e cell, which was dene at about 6; 30, According to a pre- 

arrangeo! ent , after Kempter returned from supper the prisoners 

began to "holl er** at eacii other, and Wilier called out, "Here 

is a letter, John, Joe wants to see you down latere, •• At that 

tijae Miller was in the cell wita one John Faith, Miller saw 

Kempter uolook koErXane^s cell door ana saw Me]£rlane step out 

of his cell and put an ar^a on Moran, who tcok the keys and 

handed tn^i to McSrlane, They went past ^. iller's cell and Mc- 

Erlane unlocked the cell of 415 and Kempter walked in and closed 

the dcor. After that Bopp and Dear came out of their cells with 

and coats 
their iitLte/on add in a few r.iinutes the autcsnobile arrived and 

the jail breakers got into it and were driven away. 

We are convinced that the evidence of the atatc was 
abundantly sufficiait to eatablish the conspiracy oiiarged beyond 
a reasonable doubt and that auch evidence supports the verdict. 
The defendants' witnesses were mostly inciates of the penitentiary 
at Joliet at the time they gave their testimony. Their evidence 
vas in its main features contradictory of } iller'a story. How- 
•ver, it was the province of the jury to sift end weigh the evi- 
dence and to determine wiiich was credible, and we assume that the 
jury arrived at the conclusion after weighing all the evidence, as 
do we, tiiat the story of Miller i/as in all its esisential particu- 
lars substantiated by all the facts and circuxnatances attendant 
upon the Jail delivery, under these circurastances we should not 


feel like disturbing tiie Jury*t rerdict or holding that the erl- 
d*ne« as a vhole raises a reasonable dcubt of the guilt of L'e- 
Trland and Chrlstensen of the conspiracy charped in the indictnent, 

iFhil e there ssay be teennical defects in soae of the 
instructions ccmplnined about, still we ar« of the opinion that, 
all the inatructions considered, the Jury were fairly instructod 
as to the law of the case as applied to the facts in eTidence, 
and that no Material right of ei ix^er of the defecdants before us 
was invaded or Jeopardized by the gi7in£ of any of the inatruc- 
tions complained about. The court will not reverse a Judgment 
because of a faulty instruction irhere it is apparent tiiat the 
saae did not prejudice defendants or affect the result of th« 
trial. I eopl ^ e t, CI ea in son , 25C 111. 136; Rltaaan t. I ecple , 
lie ibid 362. 

Ve do not discoTer any erroneous rulings of the court 
on the admission or exclusion of erijence or in the limitation of 
the ercss-ezajsinatien of th« vitness Viller. 

^e find nothinfr prejudicial in the remarks of the 
court complained about, "jefendanta were indicted for conspiracy, 
and it is contended that they should have been entenced undar the 
parole act. fhether or not tney were sc sentenced we are not in- 
formed by txie acatract. EoweTer, it has been z^eld that the crime 
of epnspiracy does not come wituin tiic parole act of 1917. lecple 
▼ . koaes . 286 111, 281', lecple ▼, ^onc . case general number 24493, 
opinion filed in this court June 23, lyl9, net yet published, and 
^firmed by the Supreme court at the lecembcr term 1919 in an opin- 
ion not yet publisned. 

It is also urged that the punisncent inflicted is Tiola- 
tive of the State eonstitution. iTren were this sc, thi = court has no 
J^^tsdictiOB to pass upon constitutional questions. However, it 






=•<'. ^ 


'tii'/i i .rfeuan 

would te our opinion tixat the punishment mna not unconstitutionally 

HO reviewable error appearing justifying a reversal, 
the judgment of the Criminal court ia affirmed. 



21A - 25474 

ex rel. KAT& SliOLlB^KA, 

\ Appellee, 






/ ^ 




216I.A. 645 


Defendant as conTicted, on the verdict of a jury 
and Jud^jnent thereon, of being the putative father of relatrix' 
female bastard child; he brings the record here for review by 

There is an absolute absence of any evidence that 
defendant at any tijse or place had sexual relations with the 
relatrix. The relatrix gave no testiiuony. Althougn placed 
upon the witness stand, no testimony could be extracted from 
her of an articulate character. It is said she is a deaf 
mute, although through a lolish interpreter she gave utterance 
tc a few unintelligible monosylables. Ho attempt was made to 
test her ability to understand the mute sign language, through 
which she might have been interrogated, nor was it sought to 
discover whether she could write. 

A sister testified that when defendant was con- 
fronted with relatrix' pregnnnt condition he said he •couldn't 
help it;" while upon tne witness stand defendant denied not only 
having made any sueh atateaient, but that he ever had any sexual 
relations with relatrix at any time or place. The sister seems 
from her testimony to have been bent on placing the burden of 
paternity somewhere and chcse defendant as the victim. 


A. Wi 

Tills is altogether too grave a charge to p&rmit a 
Judgment of conviction to be sustained without any subetantial 
proof to support it. 

For the failure of evidence to support the conviC' 
tion, the judgment of the li^unlcipal court is reversed and the 
oause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. 


227 - 25484 

P. 3. MciAnGITI.IN, doing tusinfisa 
as Nortiiern food i^n«l QoKpony, 

T8. '. 

S. NAPCITi?TrlT^rCZ, doinp bualnies 
»B S. & Hi, COPl OpKppny, 




1 216I.A, 64 5 


Dpfendant operated two coal and wood yards in 
Chicago, one located at 1828 West Forty-tiiird atreet and the 
other at 639 West Thirty-ninth street. Wood to the vnlue of 
$578,39 was delivered by plaintiff to defendant's Thirty-ninth 
street yard during the months of April, July, August and iep- 
t ember, 1917. 

On ft trial before the court th^re was a finding 
and jud^cnent for th^ amount of the clalr. , and defendant, is her« 
with the recofVl asking a reversal, 

Thf* defense rests in the clnim that en "Pebruery 
26, 1917, defendant sold the ywrd ^rhere the wood was delivered 
and notified h salesman of rl^intiff naaied Norton of that fact. 

It appears without contradiotion that defendant 
did business under the style cf 2, &■ K, Coal Company for reasons 
that are obvious to people cf the Fnglish- speaking tongue. Dc- 
fondent had a running acccant with plaintiff in the sname of 
"£. & i, . Coal Co.* It i» not only not denied but atands ad- 
mitted that the eigo "S, &. M, Goal Co." remained on the Thirty- 
ninth street yard during all tlic Months in w icu tue v/ood, tne 
cc8t of whic'i is sued fcr in this £uit, was beint delivered, 
Horton denied having received rny notice from defendant or 



anybody else that defemisnt had sold the Thirty-ninth atr«et 
yard, and the "bookkeeper who kept the sccounts testified that 
she had neither notice nor knowledge of &ny chsiige of proprie- 
tors « In theee circiuostsxiceB the defense failed. 

The Judgment of the kunlolpal court Is aff irnted. 



33$ • £4708 




216T./\. ^4 




opinion of th« «s© «rt. 

This «mii o lu^t a<»tvon of %kr; fourth qImss in 
tlm u,uni9i^&l Ooiijrt «f Oihi«»«4^» for the m>nir«r«ion of jsort^ 
«lIo^«4 to bavo b«(Bn <»9ll«ot«d liy thft d«f<fm«innt and wialoih 
bolon^od to tbo iileintiff as adtaUniiitrifttor tm4 whlQJb tla« 
defeniiarat w»« ull«g«iKi to hair« failed t© turn ov«r to th* 
•aid plaintiff. 7h« amount of man»y »o nll^god to h&ra 
liaon eonvert^d inm» #X9S.C6 laaa #24.75, whloh %h» d«f<?n(iant 
4iA turn ov®r, TJt« fceieuee w»pe iulmittod to a Jwry and 
"bSf VaHr yor4lot th«y found th« 4«f«iuiaat not guilty. 

Th« <l<tf«!*n(i».nt a4asJLtt<»<i, «Hil<^ te>$tifylag ^e a 
iritx)«Nie« tl»at )»? )v)d aoll<»ot«d all the Itoiaa goini; to vig^0 
ttp th« pXaidtiff *o oXaiA, and Im aAnittaa tliat th<$«« aumo 
bolonged to tho «(it&t« of vhich tlM» plaintiff waa adminio* 
trator, the dwfondant did not dony that h<!« 1»4 promioad 
t^ admini»tr«t»r to ;|urB thie /iioa«!> OTor, fi^n«i ho furth<>r 
a4»itt«>a t}<tat ho had n«v«7 done so. 


It ap})ears from th- eTitlence that the d^^eeased 
had run & eiaall livery and boarding bueines* during hi« 
life tiae and that the defantlent had kept a Vjoree and 
cab ther^. It further appears that after the j>laintiff 
took poBsejBaion of the l:)usiae«s as adcainistrfttor of the 
estate, the defendant looked aft*?r the running of the 
buRinees, huffing feed when it wae needed, having the 
hameBR«6» mended and the h©rs#»3 shod and se on. Soma 
tlwi after he had wade th?" oolleotioas belonging to the 
estate mnd the plaintiff had on several oocaeione deniand- 
ed a aettlement and a payment of the macunt collected by 
the defendant, the latter made aoae olaisi for wages. 
The def«ndant finally told the plaintiff that if the plain- 
tiff wo xLd not pay him anytirting for what he had done, h* 
nould not turn over the amount he had oolleoted, and he 
(the plaintiff) ooald do what he liked about it. On croee* 
•xaaination the dufenaant adaitted that there had been no 
arrangeiaent between hiru ana the plaintiff, v?hereby he wae 
to hare any wageej tliat th*re hr.d never be«»n any arrange- 
ment by the parties whereby he wae to do work for the plain- 
tiff, and no convoreationa were )riad about the defendant 
running th« buslnese. The plaintiff further testified that 
at the cjonvereation in whicdi the defendant olaimed he wae 
entitled to aoae am^^'unt as wages, the plaintiff retainded hia 
that he had penaitted hl.'i> to keep his horse and eab in the 
barn after >i« had taken pofiKSssion of the business for the 
estate, without any cliargo and that later, when the business 
twis purchased from the estate by thie defendant, there was 
swie hay and feed on the preniises for wriioi! no charge was 


.-t'jit«tt±i\ .." 



In ouy opinion th^re i» not »uffl«ient eiiideno« 
in the r«oord to justify a Tvrdiei allawing th« oounter 
olalm put in b>r %h« d«f endsmt »n<i th« Judij^ent muet b€! 
r«Tc?r««il mnd the cause remandod for ft n^w trial. If the 
<i«f«sid!a7tt ren<ier«<i «erri@«s for wlUoii he ie '^ntitl*?*! to 
b« pAl'i l»y th« plaintiff aa HdniniRtrator It »)tOiilai bt 
•liAvn definitely what the eejrrlcws vwrtt. 

Itt^ftnsuch .'3!i!' the ;'i€f S'H'iant ».<4jaltt«<i tfeat he had 
ooll»«iit<!d *1I tJn« itemts goirv^ t« uike up %'am ^laintiff^e 
ol«ia, and that th«>s«» «-uiae Veloaged to lh« ®et»te of whi'ah 
th« pliuintiff w^fl adtoinietrator an<i that ^« hM n«7er |»ai4 
theara 0T«r, a« plaintiff itll«g«d, th» latter -BWuld b« an- 
titl«<i to a Ju«JU{»«nt for th« asitount ol&iued lesa the asioaitt 
of dofendant'A cotmt<9r slaioi provided suoh counter olaia 
is •8ta'bli8h«d ^y propor and suffioient ovidona*. 

In nn^ ttvanX Jioivever the plaintiff would not 
ba entitlf^u to a tort judgraent against ti»« d®f*»»d«at for a 
oOQvarsion, Thf^^ livorjr' buainetc «ae eol(^ by tlic 0jstat« 
and puroiiaaed b^ thts uof endtmt ab^^ut t'^e middle of ;iajr and 
tli^ der<5n4ant euggestod that insieiid of tltm ad inl«strator 
billlatl tlm oiustcm^rs vtha he,d imvfi^B in Uio et&bla, for 
the first >mlf of the m<>nth anu th© 4»f«wdant for th« 
aoijond half of the raonth, th« defe«d«**t would bill tham 
for the entire; is^onth ttnd. tii*?n pey th« adTaini a trustor th<* 
proportion of th« «oll(»otion> to which ho «;ao antitlod. 
Tho adiainletrator aijrted %q thin and it ra. done and saa«y, if 
net moot, of thv* itemo goin^ to msJis.«t up hie olais oonsiot 
of tlio parta of th'^^e oolleotione to which th«! ootate tma 
•ntitled. Und«tr euoh oireumctaneoa oonTorsioa would not 
^**« Kerwia T» Balhatone tt. 147 ill, App. 561; Fnrrcll Ta 


Bruee, ISO 111. Apx>, SC9. 

H«w«y«r, undPj' the Funlcip«l Court aot, aotion* 
of this elas? a,re brought without fonaal writtea pleadini^e 
and thi? fast timt tJie plnintiff ' k B'tat^aent of claim ie in 
tort would not prevent Mo reoeyery of a monejir judgwent, 
proTided the erldence warranted it. }g4ig«rton t . 0, H, I. & i». ^ 
SSL' 3Sjl* ^*0 2:11. 3X1, 

?or thf! ri=^5jP0n8 etotrtd tVu> JudKa«ni of tho 
Municipal Court ip reT<"i-»»d th': the cauB* refimniiet! to thsst 
e urt for ;?. nr^'r tria-l , 

89(^.. 24743 


^ Appellant, *' 

01 w OP cipavoo, / 




21 6 I. A. 64 6 

opinion of th« oourt. 

Thie is an appeal hy the plaintiff from a Judg- 
a»nt for the def-snUant, the cjourt haring inatruoted the 
ittiy to find the defandant not guilty at the eloee of the 
plaintiff *e caa«. 

By her aotien the plaintiff sought reoovery of 
daiaages for alleged pereonal injurifte. The only questloa 
preeented by thie appeal ic^latee te th« euf lieiencgr of 
the notiee of tiie alleged injuries. Undor the statute, 
before aueh an action can be brought, the plaintiff 
Buet -within six months from the date of the accident 
file in the office of the City Attorney and City Clerk, 
*a etatetaent in writing, signed by such person, hie 
agent or attorney, giring the name of th*» person to 
vhom Buoh cause of aotion ha* accrued, the iMuae and r<^sl« 
dence of person injured, th« date and about the hour of 
the aeoldent, the place or location where such accident 
oecurred, and the naiae and address of th«» attending 
physician (if any)," 111. Sts, J.& A. sec. 619C, 

It vae «li«g«d in the deol&ratlon that the injury 
ooBiplained of ooctirr'sd on S«pteaber 12, 1915, It appeared 
in evidence that unuer date of September 20, 1915, the 
plaintiff' E hwsba.nd wrote a iPtxrr to the "Lav Department 
of the City of Chlcftgo*, r«ftding ae followo: "I wip,h to 
inform j^ou tiiat on Sunday, B#pt«»il9er Ifith, rs^ wife received 
a serious injury to her leg by bumping af^lnst one of the 
iron boxes used by th«» •3ity for rstreet cleaning on I'olk 
near Shwrman etreet ae the reatilt of n narrow obotruoted 
sidevalk: Youra sincerely, Adnm A, Bird, 603 5th Ave." 

Unier date of September 24, 1915, ft coimaunioation 
was eent from thi^ office of the :ity Attorney nddr^sscd to 
Mr. Bird nnd reading aa follows: **! beg to advice ycu that 
the iron boxes which are used for street sweepings arf the 
prop*^rty of the :]itixen«* Street Cleaning Aesooiation, lo- 
cated in the Old Colony Building at i>e:»rborn and Van Buren 
streets. You ought to talce up yo^j^r daii/ with thea, ^fery 
truly yours, Marshall Amberg, As^irtant City Attorney,* 

The qu*5Rtion he i e pr'>««»nted has frequently been 
before the <Niurts of review in this otcte, the ctntute 
has been declared cone ti tut ionjf?l and valid mid it h?».a re- 
peatedly been held t^iat its terms sauet be Btrictly com- 
plied with by on«» :9uing a "iunicipaXity for pereonnl in- 
juries, and it in fipparent thnt in a nunber of re^pecte 
the notice involved here was not one which met the re- 
quirements of the statute, Guitnette v. City of :?hlca/pcO . 
242 111. 501; Waltere v. ;ity of Ottawa . 24 C 111, 269; 
Swenson v, City of Aurora , 196 III, App, 83; i^oi chert v. 
City of OhicaKO^ 169 III, Ap<^, 493; Zyoinski v. Cit^ of 
ghica^r.o, 163 ill. App, 413, 

v^: *••**« f!f«**' 


It iu urged by the plaint If f^ tlwt %h» defendEUt 
hftTinis shown by tho l«tter of lie Cit^ Attorney in reply 
to the notice eent* that it hsd received that natice and 
hftTing failed tr r<»qvi#8t further infcrr;:atiow or raise th« 
l>oint that %Hn notice received did not iriv' tne inforrm- 
tion required by the Btatutfls, it ishoul.1 not euboequ^ntly 
be permittftci to urge the inauff ieiency of the notion and 
thus defeat her aetion. The giring of the notioe required 
by th(» fjtatute haa b««n raj4d*> » condition prpoedent t© the 
Glty*B liability and oonntitutnii an essential elesri^nt of the 
plaintiff's cauHffl of aation. 'She City has no power to waive 
the giYing of a proper ncrtice &nd is under no liability un- 
til suoh a notice is given. Wal t ere V. P ity of Cttaim , 240 
111. 259. 

'^e find no error in t^ record and, th«»rfflf©re, 
the Judgment ef the Circuit Oourt i« affirmed. 

410 - S4778 

aSOHOS 3. PYfKKT, f»r the ub« c^ 
Mary L, jyreciaan, Individiuslly, Jaml 
&8 I'lxeoutrix vmder tae la»t wl|l 
«.n<a tprtarient of i!enry V. 5'r«»^mp, 

sasRHJor s. o^ifsnu 



21 6 I, A. 64 6 

KR. PKT^RlDlWa JTJ«TIf3?? TM0HI30K deliTcred tvie 
Opinion of th-^ court. 

7hi8\l» im ftpvi«al by tb« plaintiff in a garnish^ 
uen% prooe€!4inSf from an order disoJmrglng thn garnifsiuie. 

Cn ?<«brtittr7 7, 1918, th« <5ri4^inal plRintiff, 
Mary L, Trtiemtn, indivldunHy unci a» oxfriutrlx un«i«r th« 
last will and toKtasaent of Henry Y, yr«i»inan» dfopftped, 
r«»eov«red a judgiaf^nt ia the f^mi cipal Court of Chicajcro 
against Georgo B. i^fr«^''t for |1«6,60 for r«nt, l^oftution 
wa» loouod ettc retamad no prcp^rty found anrf th^r^i^aftwr 
thl« sas^Hls ^nn^nt pro carding was instituted a/i:ain»t tha 
garni Bh«?e, Shanaan Ci, t3pitRar. 

In support of this prooaeding plaintiff showad 
thnt «xeautioa had bran laeuad folloviog Judgment in 
anoth<?r suit against th^ sama dafandant for another in- 
stsllmant of rent und(>r tin® sazao laasa and that exaeution 
had been !>laaed in %l\» hanac of the Bheriff on Daoambar 
10, 1917; that on JDacsrabor 14, 1917 tha judgment debtor. 


I^g«rt* had triinaf «rr««i to th«» gArninh<9«, Splt««r, a 
<3«rtifl^attt for oArtsin »>'mr«« of stoj*: in the ?opp«r 
Canyon !:ij3ins Ooa^pany mnd thAt at t)i»i tit.i« iupitz^r 
was aoting aa .th« attorney for .iJygtrt nnd that oa 
I>«eeml3«r 21, 1917, B|)lta«r had sold thie; etook for 

BpltS(»r i«atified ihitt an ln<1f?bt«^iln«es «xlst«d 
from Dygurt to loiu wlUch had br»en aoououlating ©vsr a 
loof $>«riod and atid grovn to semewherft between ^^3,000 
aRd $3,5C02 that no part ht'td @Ter been paid nor had he 
«Ter re<jaivaa any int«r«iitj «nd that >«? 4i0iiiixnd<«(t ]>aym«nt 
of it «r »ora« tt«ourity un it and that 0jg«rt transferrad 
th< @tO!^ In qusietion to him in oon»id(^3ration of UiH 
d,«bt; thai ha ff>un4 a man who held a conn id Table amount 
of tho ffane at#ak iyi«i «a« willing %<i take nore and he 
sold th(i Btook to hXa\ tor the> consideration above i3en« 
tioned onU gave i;Qrg«$xt $720 in the vny of a oonuriiesion 
for bringing a1»out tH« sale* The *!»X(Reution plaeed in the 
hanae of the sheriff Dftoetaber 10, 1917, vae rstumea no 
property fo -nd, mar ah 8, 1913. 

The garnishee, lnacint'»«ting thi« proceeding, 
contended th;it th(? ia^ue of whether he had in his poae* 
eeslon or oontrol &n^ property ar effeois belonging to 
Bygert or in wnioh the letter had any titl«» or intoraet, 
had benn prevlounly litigated between hla and th«> plain* 
tiff and that *\isAi iooue had been d«?olded in faror of the 
garniehee and that the plaintiff iraa, thipref0r»», estopped 
by eucsh pr«Ti',°ua finding from again oontro verting the 


It api^ears froa th@ record that on DeQ«ffll»«r 31, 
1917, a judgnent w«» •fli«r«<J in another suit against the 
Baa« defendant SBrgort for another iiii«italli3«mt of rent 
NOider th« aatia If^as**, %h» plaiutiff in that esaea being 
•Mary I., Fre<?num, wxipcutrix of th« estate of Vitmry V, 
7ra«Bian, d<*o«a8«d*; that exeeution vas leened on that 
i«4L#&ant January S, 191S aiKi returneu no property found 
on January 3, 1918 nnd on thtf emne day garni ehsaent prooeed* 
inga wer« boKua against Spitaer by "i^ygcrt for use of 'ary 
JL>« Vreemin, executrix of the eetate of Henry V. Fre«aaRn, 
deoear.eti. * 

It further app*«arB that en January 4, 1918, a 
Judcaont was entered in still aneth«fr suit ae^^nst liw 
saae defendnnt i^gert for another laetaHsient of rent 
uader the same Xeaoe, the plaintiff ia th«tt caee being 
■lotate of Henry V. 7re«as(an, by Mary L. ?re<»raaB, agent*; 
that execution was issued nn that Ju<%itient Jrmuary 5, 191B 
anu returned no property found on January 7» 1918 and on 
the Slime day garnishment proceedings wjre begun againat 
Spitser by *I^gext fpr u* f^ of the BJst^te of '''a^nry V. Free- 
raan, by i^ry L, Freeman, agent, • 

Upon the hfi'arings on thft^e two preYlous garnish* 
ment jtroeeedings the garnishee was disohar^^'^^d. It vas 
stipulated by the parties in the suit at bar that the 
Mary L« Freeisan, George 2, J^fT^ert and Oh^sxTsam €« £ipitzer 
aasned in the^e various suits are the parties whs appear 
of reoord as parties to th« preeent garnishment proeecdinijB 
and appeal. 

tbn two syreTiouK g«raisteent proo«e4ingB wouXd 
b© re» j ^udloatPi and Tt»y r*>«s5on or t)WfK«pyoo«»<Jing« th« 
plaintiff wo'Ud 1»« «»te9p«a fra-^ proe^ outing the garnish* 
ment proo«edinij» involved h«ex«, if tit® eyia«no« Bh©w«ci tlmt 
la thoa9 9r«Ti :ue preoendinga, or »3tt Xeaat on« of th«a, 
the iilAlntiff «o\iight to reaor^r froai tli« garnlehefi "by 
reason of tli'S transfer ©f eteck from Dygert to tb« garniehe* 
and tts«! eal« of that stosfe by thp latter, which in the 
matt<»r tli« plaintiff in ur^^ing b«f« as the basis for r©» 
eoY«ry. Th««r© is no iftuah aJtowiag in this r^*©«i^, T1m» 
■ost that ®p9«ar« if* t«?etiiaony by the def enaant that th« 
pr»Tiou» fjarniB>TO#nt proo«>eaingo involved *th» eane isftu««* 
or "the 8am« oubjAdtoaatter" act the present euit. The 
ioisufi- or »ubj«ot<»iaatter involved in all thn garni«]a»«nt 
]>rooo$ding« t9a« whether th@ ^axni»ta««, at th^ timm he »aa 
Dt^rvod, ««,» pOBcoeeed of &ny funds b»«longing to liiygart 
or mhiB%h»v at that tinui th»$ garni e he « wds indabtetd to 
IQrgiirt. V7o do not o>'nsia<ir th« evld«no« in tMs record 
Buffioipnt to show that in either of the previoJiS pro- 
oeedings the pi aintif f urgtsd th® af flnaative of that 
issue beoAuee of the transfer of eteak whiah is in i|ues* 
tion in this suit. 

The plaintiff oontentis that she should r^oover 
against th« garnishee h^rs because of the fact that he 
took th*!* mining stoek in questtien from iiiygert, on Beoeaber 
14, 1917, whftn it was subjeot to the lien of the J|udg>-aent 
en which exeeution vas i^laeed in t^ hwAds of thf* eh<»riff 
on J)ee<HMiMr 10, 1917, and that it eoatlnued to be subjeot 
to that lien at the tiae Spitser sold it whidhi vaa I>eG ember 
21, 1917, ThiE oont^'ntion cannot prevail. The exeeution 


Which wftB plaoid ia tj» hands of th« nheriff ©n Jhseemher 
10* 1917 waB r«turn«4 "ao property foumd* on t'arch 8, 
1918, ninety days After it wae itautd. (1X1. Ste. 0*1.77, 
••0. 8) no l«vy having h««n MPde uadpr it and whatever 
lien had attached te th^ etc ok in qunstien at th« time 
the execution «»■ glTen to thp sheriff, thoreupcn erased 
to esdkSi, ^rhin Vj, if'egroe , ai ill. 461; hasmXz ▼., 'ires-iiB, , 
Id 111. App. 329. IThe garnishee was net eerved in the 
<Mee at bar until '^iay 6, 1918. 

Ho\rev'^r, we are of tiae o»iini«ii tJmt the Judg* 
sent in this oa-^e mutst h« ri»v«3reed and the aau«$e reinanded 
to the Uuniolpal Oeurt of ^hi<mg9 for a ney? trial on an- 
other ground, the evid^^noe io nuffiei«^nt to show that at 
the tia^ of thin »teck trani^fer het«e«ii l^Qrgcrt and e^itxer, 
the latter waa noting aa attorn*^ forth© forj?*«r in oon- 
neotion wit:* th«? euitii wMch had h«sifi!n brou^'ht against hl» 
for rent. That th<? defendant app©ar<»d in court on eeveral 
oooasiotiB rej^raeenting Dygert in aon^<?etion with one or more 
•f theee euitt for rent and that thle wae done at I^jrgert'e 
request ia not disputed. Ab was said liy th*": oourt in 
antera y, jjarahall , 3 MeCrary'e He^orte (U.S. Gir.) 76, 
"Sothing jator»» »h6 nec»»esary to oonotitute the relation 
• f attorney and allent". The transfer of 8te«lc hoing a 
oonYeyance of that preasrty hy I^ygert to hlB attorney, 
the traneaction i» prtfaxmfid hy the Ih'k to be oonetruotlvel/ 
fraudulent and, therefore. In a suit by I)y gert, the client, 
or by a creditor thro>jgh hia, by which it. ie eoui;ht to 
set aside that transfer or reoover its prooeeds, th<^ burden 
of |>roef is uputt the defendant attorney, to show that the 


tranafer w«b ben^ ftdi^ and in no way frau<3ul«nt upon hlti 
cli«nt or the latter*!? erftdltor«. This rul« ia api^Xlc&bl* 
to contiracts or tr»nBf»ri» bw'ta'«<»Ti a cli*fn% and hie Httornfiy 
whll# t)%»t (ttoafidentlnl rflintion •xls'te and It In not cscn- 
flned to oftfide in which th<? particular property whl<jh waa 
th» subjeot of th« contract or transfer, io the «««• property 
InTelYed in th« rorttt«y «oticorning which th«f attorney aay lmf« 
l>««m «aploy#ri. 3 J^, M&x, ^oy. of Utw . («n<l. F.d.) 337; 
Jgnwingg Y« jjaQonxiitl , 17 ill. 148. v,,u©t«tl with ajiproyal 
la iiOB^ y, ^ X»RyKon . 160 ill. 349. I Story»r l^quity Jur. 
(14 K4. ) sec. 4.^3. iies^ 14 Cent. L. J. 108; W«isle« on 
Attern«ys at Law, «eo. 273. 

Frwauaiably th* Judgtaeiat aprstaled frojs IwrolTfid 
a finding by tho trial court to tiw? effect that tto© <J?'!fend« 
«at had •uetained thp Taurdsn eaet upon him "by thfl! law and 
•hftva by a pr«p«nder«m c« of th<^ <»vldpnn« that tu<? transfer 
• f etock, froia i)yg«rt to him, wsa on« whioh s>iauld b# held 
▼alid, Mnu in that respect w« are ef th«» opinion Iht^t th« 
finding of tli« wurt wa» agaliat thw aanlfftwt weiftht of th<? 
•Vid«nc«. Without dieoueain^ the evidenoe at length, it 
will be sufficient to way that thft defendant did not testify 
that th^rs was any d«finit« »um owing iT&m. J^ygart to )il», 
bat he did t«?stify that h« had adTanoed ewaa to li^gert fron 
tl£&f to time OTer a long period anu that the>s« had ooa«? to 
aggr«fgatt «osMwli«r« between |3,00€ nnd, ■^;3,&0@{ thnt th*; 
indabtedneas waa n^t OTidf^noed by any note or othar writing 
but that th© r««j«ipt of •ome eunii: adTano<sd hn4 be«?n acknowl- 
•dged la lattera, ana otherei in I.O.U. mainoranduiMi; that 
tha defendant had riemanded payjaent or eoria reourity froa 
Dygert but t>tat the latt'jr m4 no funds with whiali to pay 


the A»h%t but wji« willing to Ivtrn «v«r about th« only thin^ 
be Isad, whie'i v«ui that stook in q\)i««tieii. Th« defendant 
fur titer te9tifl04 that I>yg«Tt did not trmn8f««r ih«! steok 
to hin to s«au3r« the tiolat but in p&ytavnt of it and h« 
Ko/a that vbon her roooiTOd the stoak from Ugrgart Jam r«« 
tumad to hi* aueh naneranduma «vi<|f>n6iiic thn indebtdtfnoae 
aa he* oould find and tl'iat aom« h«» <3o n.d not find aa thoy 
ware hurled in oXd trunks, in the form of Icttara* and wora 
not available. Althoa«vii tha indebtadnaai^ vaa aa tho de« 
fandant tsatlfisa, fox aoaethinis batween tS.OOO and $3, 500 
aad intf^r«st, tho d«»f<mdn!nt t$ctifl«d th»t vhtin he took 
the 8to<ft: in oaneellation of th.i\i ind'-btffdnesB, **I did 
not expaet to realixa anything on thai Btook, I didn*t 
■uppeae it »a« worth anytlilBg. X oiM^Jly took it ae the 
beat thing I eould get.* HoweT^r, it ©ppeara from the 
evidenoe, th»t trithin a week after the d«!f«n<ianft had 
taken the a to ok, not ezp eating to realisa anything en it 
or ouppoaing that it 9a» eorth anything* he* eold it for 
•Ter $5,900t tm atacuni far in axeaaa of the laaxizsua figure 
t«>ctified to aa theaeiount of the iad'^btedneaa, in payment 
of w^ileh the etook «aa transferred. And although the 
defendant t^ritifiea that I^gert tranef erred thu etocdc to 
hiis in eanoellation of th<^ debt and that thr>refore to took 
the steok fnr better or for iroraa and oould not b«? oon» 
aidered aa owlnfr Dygert any taxing if it turned out to be 
worth ni\ tmount which exoeeded the a/aoiait of the debt, 
it nererthelegiu appears th«t the defendant did pay £orgert 
#720 out of thi? mm redilisad from tha aale of the atoek. 
Se cays this payment id th«» way of a ootomieBion to 
Ugrgert for bringing about the »al«. 

yrom all this evidence w« ar* •f th* opinion 
that at th« tiao th« 49fmnimxt v«« «(»rv«(i with th« jpymiahe«' 
•uanoBS in this ^nne h« must b« h«ld to haTA A^ed S^gert 
«t l«a«t a eutt suffiQicnt to irarrant a judgsmeint Against 
bis in favor of thio plaintiff and eft a re«trial of this 
oaao auith ja<iffa«nt should 1»« ante red ualean the defendant 
oulKttito further ovidense whioh will be ouffioioat to a««t 
the Ijurtlen whioix the lav east* upon him of olearly OBtaW 
liehing the b<) a u | fid e a of th> Bteolc transfer, or imleao 
Bufriei<?nt evidenoe ia produced as heretofore indicated 
to eotahlieh the oentention that the preTiouo g&2*ni ehment 
pro«e*?dinG« are ree Judioata . 

yar th« raaaons »tated the Judgment of the 
liuaioipal Court ie reversed and th^ oi^use ie r<%mRnded 

to that court f^r a new trial. 



/ i^ 

194 • 24542 



ft oon^iration, 7ruot«« tn bankruj^oy ) 

of IQAAC WL'R&'ZmmiQ **ftd .aAririY Jl, 



Y Xp^iii^nt.. i 2 1 6 I. A, 6 4 ( 
216I.A. 646 

SH, JMiiTil^Tl^i O'CCSTIOa d#liT«r«ii r.h« opinion of 
th« couyt, 

Plaintifr, «e TruBte* of X, Hlr«chberg &: Son, » 

ftKndADta to ye<jOT»r the valun of cc^rtaln goods aold by the 

iMtnlcrupio to th(» d<»f o^ndanta with int«at to df^fraud, Qivftat, 

tkQtX injviro th« VAnkrupis* or^^dltorOt allogiag tM t dftf^nd- 

ttfliio had i£nowl«dis0 of thi» faoit. 7h«> Action wao bao^d <m 

Soao. 67*11 fknd 70»^ of the Sunkruptoy Aot. Th9r«« was « 

T«»rdlot (Mid Jttd^Ant la plaintiff* faYor for ^12,10&, 

to r«v«Rra« vhitsJt aefsntlanto preoottuto this appeal. 

7\f rmeord dieolooee tlwt tlm bankrupts* prior 
to th« iisae they «4r« adjudioatod sue)!, w«^r«) ;aBnufaatur«ro of 
QloaJks. ouito aa<i skirts* and ^mr^ at»ndu<3ting th^ir businsss 
in Oiji«Rtgo; that the df'ftmjonts were •agagitd In buying »nii 
•oiling job lots and odds and tnds of woolms, tri^mim^t, 
silks » ^1lnd slothing; that in liaroh, 1907, four aonths b«»for« 

th«> w«-r« ««#kinat «r«dit, mhe'wing «.»»«ti of mtr© than 

ttVnt «rae Ea».«l«« a»d prlar to tnfi» bajifcyyipt^^y pjrofj«<*fil«^, th« 
%tt]nkrupt« puriii*v'««a nostrly 4^ ^c^ worth »f ^edn o« «i»<»di%j 
tliat at th^ %im^ «-f th« fallurv^ thwir d^btn «xo««49'l $l8,f0t', 
while tki«ir (iii»«1i» \r«r«t wortlt only #!:!2C7«11; tlmt frea .Taa« 
22, X90t, until July 17, 1907, th® :itir»9hb<?rg» «ol4 tc th« 
d(>fena«ntft, tt« it •iif'i«, r«»o«!ir«!d, i(M»r« tbim «if!;ht tbou»aR4 
yard* ©f woolenK for tr.irty^five per ««nt lone timn Xhrnj 
]9A«t eontr%dt«d tu p«^ for it; that for the »nle of th@&« 
C««<t<i tli# d«f«»4ndnt« i^l'l t}.iMK ba^etkrupts i:&20Z,&SH\ t^mt {.>n 
July 2C, 190*1, n pptltton in bankimytay wa.« fil«d a,gAAtt«t 
tla» i41rE»3hb«apg8 iui4 oa Attijuet 5 they vtere ««iju4ic»t«d b«t>k* 
ruyt«i that afterwutras ^^IttJ.atilTf woe ftpp«int«4 Trust** 
AilA Ql^iiass asgrtt<;|ating IIS, 391. bC v«!r» fiX«4 nii<i al'Jte««4 
la th« bftnkru.ptflC^ pr o o« <;» 4 inis si j tl'mt th® ft«««rt« of tfe.« 
baniacruptft w©r« apj>rc,ia«d nt tBS:C-7,ll; fhrit tho Truwt*?* 
r«eoT«jr«<i a<»;rtaia s&0a«y» on aa^wiint ©f fraiudui«nt |pay."a^nti 
tM(l<? liy th« bfttikmptff, so t^t ihf« tstal ««»<it8 in the 
iMtAd^ «f thff T7USt«« iu«ouiit«d to :13616«2^. 

It waff th« theory ef the plaintiff* that the 
t^ciniltruptB and def«n<4Ant» Juid «Bt<pr«<i into «» fraudulent 
•diuiaft t»h«»r»by ih« ^iiitkruptv wtr-^? to puralMnsw jjooae en 
er«4it «m<l re»«ll th*«s ti th« <}ef«ntiant» f«r auoh 1*iir 
t^n t)!xrf huxOttNj^Xn isod Mntr»ot«cl to pny for thoM, axi4 
th»t thie wf&A ft:?t«r»ardw a»rri«ci out, C» thf*- other b&ndt, 
th* def^kn^SLnts* position va» tlmt th» purohan* of ^oodii 
1l»j thieja fressi th» b»n.krui»t« wro bo n a f tdf , n«d ii-mt ti"i«y 

cn^v MS rid" 2 -^ 

hmd no n»%lG& or amo^Xad^tt tiukt %i\t<t tmniaruptis w«r« In 
flTMnoiAl itll'fid'.i^tien at thn tit^n of th« pure))mR<*«» or 
th«t th'* )»*n]rript» wore Intending to d'^frii*>nl. th»ir orodl- 
tori. 7l»i» d«f<m<i«nt«* pt»«itlnn ort this ittsue i« %imX 
%i3» v«r(ti«t JLfi ii|;Alnst th«> faanifeiit tr«i^bt of th<@ ftviL€l«no«, 
&n4 thK> rvituli ut s»a.«%ion, ^r«ju«iia«« sixi •yvipot.har* ^« 
(Itt n4»t thinJs: It )t«ce»sarjr to 4iBQai»« tho evidence on this 
point in d'tajiS.. tti« «ltn<?ofi» aur«wita* t«?««tifi«^U far 
th» |>lfliintiff thAt u|? to th« tijs*' th# petition in b«rUc» 
rupt<t/ ■»»« fil«^ 1»« w«« « b«okk««j»«y for th« Winkrupta; 
that ia Jun# or July, 19C7, Huby Cohw«irt«, on«t of t>M» 
d»f«]!i4«{it» «ii« In th« bll.nkr^lpt«* pXaeti «f bu«ines8} thfit 
th« wltnofts •v«3rh«Ar<t a winrmwwHtien b«tw«<»n Seh«Arts» 
Hir««h1>«rc» 'J<»n«nA »ml «i eJwlImojn , ia whi'^h it -««« niateti 
that v>aiwaxt.i ^Mild poyoiitttt* »11 th« i%«2PQhandi«« riir»oti» 
iHirg 4K> iid get at 35^1 off the ooat s»riQ«t tiwit, Hirodhbor^i 
gav« L-oh«Artx «i>a originA^ imroiao for goodn on wiiioh 
{S«h««>rt]« flg^troU up ^he tmc m% thai d«f@nd«nts we vl4 be 
required to pity the fiMtnkrupte for that parti oular bill 
•f geode. Thie oonvereatiea «no denied by t^ohirMrtii i^ntX 
S^Miilmta • Berraaa did net teotify. The^jr both t«ntifi<»d 
that ttviji h^kd act been to ih«t bankru^ta* piaoe of buainaaa 
t«get.»»e»# Bohwarta denied beinic %h<"r*f at «ny tiwe. Tha 
defendanta aiao produced ti^uraa aii>$Mr«ntly iiiaiat«?rft«ted 
wit >eee«» who r«pre«eiit«d fhree diff»r«nt tailoring oo»- 
aerna. ^tAOh teetifiad in eubatance th^it they had oold 
at diff«» ent timet to diffenaanttt , woolena for otmeider- 
ably laae thui the )3urehasa pricte, sou9i^tiM«e trtm 3< < 
to S0.-3( jleee. they testified, heifertsr, thiit the woelema 
eo aold w«»r« edda and ende, old etook, i^und wheX^ pieoee 



tiMkt 119 t9t 99X4 ttf %tv» «n<{ of th« s«A»eo, w^Ush w«irtt net 
<J«»lrab\o t« litivry ©T«r, If thl« W'-^rt* «1X th» «irl4«ni»i 
«»n %i%iB iidint, ^Ii«rr4» minhi '!)« mtmm hamiu f«r 4«3tttn4«ii»t«* 
«fguia«nt« Buf t>i«!rt» ia no 4i»^'mt« tliMt this tf«f«n4s!t.i«tft 
puro)ms«ti )9«iwtmi Jvin^ ajt ami Jul^ 3^7. iyc7, 9ii^hX tht»u»« 
aqU /eirftft of irsaltnB trmk tit* bftnkruptn for Sk!&% X«9t^ tlaim 
%hm Wolcrupta ^<1 «icr'ji«Ki to pn;^ for thim, an<: th«i gi»&4ft 
•o j»ttr«)i«i««4 «4ir<^ f3«t odUit an4 »»df» nor aid ivtook, but 
w«r« D'&w ^odt i<^mi tb(? ftcd9« W' re ?,)et i.%acl« at lh« «in4 of 
ih« ««ii»0a. If* th&nJc it i^l'^iMr without « ftu'th^r artiiVyvi* 
•f t^bt tivl^^i'na^ that thfi «>tirtlr« tr»n««atlon van a «roote«4l, 
frmuutvUent sohOKW* from bcginMluK te «nd, snti thni any 
di»ini&ir««t«4 p«3!*acm, irh© would oeii»titi>j> t)» »vlU«no®, 
eould atm*^ tn no other ot»aalu«Jlon. 

But #«ft»n<ii%nte ooai^atl thctt th« i«idifiin*»t ea6»«it 
«t»nd fnr %hn r*m.ti<»n thsit i>lAintlfft fail«i>(l to all«g» 
fluitt proven t^t inm inAivi4ivmX mmi^^^Ti& of th« bfti)icru|>t 
fir» «<n;r« in«Qlv9nt; thstt lh9 only r«a«ioa thtt tru«^«« 
«Aii (Eaal^taln tH's&ii suit ie for %m jp^r^o* of cKtllffi 'tiag 
Buffi9i«iit aA»«i4i to 9Ajr til* or^iltor*, uttd tlrwt in th9 
tMiOtruptey pro*tt««iitigB osUgr tb* p&rtts*rnbi|» wa* iH(Mudi««t«<l 
b&iikrupt Ha4 ttot IHe individual {it4K&b«ni and, th«r<^f07* 
for *U4;)3t tSat •;?>«kr«, th* individual a«»ab«r» of th* 
iMinkru^t 9«irta*r»M9 tmy hRV«» «uffi«l»«t oAtsots to pny 
mil th« Qreditor*. In Byspport ©f thi» tiw? «»»• of 
Hodglf Vjt firg t HaMaasL l^tfnit ££ Uiiaa. 23 Am. B.H, a97. 
It oit«a. WhMt*vor sMty >»• >i«»ld in thftt *aii», it is not 
1*« in Xlliaois for in Va* ono* of Abbot ▼» Aadernen . 269 ill, 
2a5, li wa» h«ldi that t>io thiN»ry that a partnerohi^ was 
• 1*4*1 ontity di«tin*t and wiparat* ft*» t^ ia«eiiber* 


oeapecinif it* hiia not %h» lam in thi» ^itftt*, cwid ttet 

Against ft partn^irehlt iuerti inn b« no a«iJu4io«ktluit 

iig»iniit th« s^r%a«rfthi:p iml«i»%> all of itft i»«3»b«r» mrm 

It 1» rmn,% aant«iided i2»it ih« o«uri ttrr«<l la p«i«iitting 
plaintiff to ftj«ieit4 bjr oii^nglug th« imttte tttm An^rioe^n Truet 
ii SAirillge B«jUe, T2ruetii« «f th# bmUtTuptis, to %hn (H^nllnmnUCi 
A 3i»ngi«y«l«J. Truvt •&. B«i«rinipi Bank, fte «ueh truBt««s t)int 
tlw «tt«ndiaant aft«r«ftr(di» i^u8t4«> MRhta not in »i30ordiiur!i<»e with 
th« ord^r of mitX in %lm% it r«ad» "Contifioatol 7ru»t & 
SoTiaa:!) JttitJK'* lafttA«&4 of "C^ettlnental k Ooxmoiralftl truot 
moA SttTlnifO BAUtkc", (md ih«*r«ror«, tiieifo imo ft vfiTlstno^, 
Q» the trli&l^ 1» ^TOTlttg tlitt «««unt of »&n<«y rt^ai^lrod V 
tn^ii-- truotoo, it, di«volo}^«a timt t;^« An«ri9n.» ¥3ruot 4 finiriaiii 
Bnnk luia Qhaii||«dlts hum* to tuo <3ontlfli(»ntol l» 9ows&«»roiiil 
Truot it Savlaso Btrnk* ami this ma^mAwtnt wko «o«3or41ngXy 
olloitfod. f« tM*i)c t}!ie f»>ot timt th« iWH>f»&%a{it sraa not 
in toehnl<Bil oosi^liiuioo with %hw erd«r» oanaot b« ovailfttt 
of* flM» <|\i<^n>tl<3ii Of v«i.riano« w«o nkot In a^ wRjr mJlooft 
on tii« trial. 

it l« l;^let«»4 ttottt %hr» wurt eetsmittod error 
in «Mimltting ov«7 objcotlon cividrnOM off^roil tgr tho plain* 
tiff« w>iloh WHO highly i>r<i»Judlii«l to dof omi!»jnto* Tho 
ovidano^ ooMj^laiaftt of io (1) a oertlflod oc|;^ of tine 
olftlaui fil»4 ftiHl allowodi o^inot thi» iMmkrupto. (2) tJio 
invontoxy and opprolooss^nt of th(» WnkruptOt »nd 1» por* 
alttlnit one of ihtt bicinkrupto to r^frooh hltn rcoollootlon 
froa th« twinkruiyto/ oojiodulo, (3) th© troaooript of %h» 



t«sti»oit}r giY«ii W Httlbgr &ot)i«mrix» on^? of thff <S«rf<md«iii«, 

)»«f«r« %bm ll#f #jr«*? in 3««kr«pt<^ »n an «xi*n'4imitleR iii 

tijAt ,91*0 <s»«!d Aug in j*a flra«t«^«iror to di«aov<»r a«««t«s ©f 1J»« 

£i«3ooaist« (&} th(» fiiittn«ti«l BU\%<m.»ni iaa<}« >»y thft b»rtlE<» 
raptt about ^«r aioatb« prior to th« barjlcrupt«y pro«>e«4(» 
lags ftt? tlMi pa^poo9 of oMfiioinit erAdit, (6) Xhx books 
•f account of %^ lmr)kra]^t.a and %i%» tentisaony aa to !7<?rtaiii 
payttonta »a<tft le^ than, (7) tto« tastiMon/ of Honry 8« £:«iia«4y» 
Mi4 ih# ejrofiM»axiuai nation of Kuby Setaaarts and MiolUiOi 
Ooaa*, (m4 ai^ttlag tho aufWRons itt aneth'^r 'maa in ovl* 
4ano«, mid (a) %hn bfi>stii9ioay ia rabuttal of Cimn, B, Brlot 
and Kattt )l»i»aa« ?• iMak all of tfek« evi^aaoo timaln«; to 
ahov vhat w&a 4on« in thei '.tai^ruptcQr prooaoding wao pm^mp^ 
Ij admlttad, as th«aa rsoorUc 'wn^luitiveXy shoved t)»« «»««t« 
and liabilitioo of the bankrupto. tft ««»jr««, irtiat isma 
tli^T« doa9 -ii}t)'.aa not Vind iHa d^^fon^aata in tmsf way, Wt 
iMforci tJ8« plaintiff «ould raootar i» thl« «a«a It aaa 
aaooooary for hl« t<» prova that th** bankrupto oold th« 
l^oda ia ^aotion to th<9 d'^fem'santo to hin^ar, dalay tmA 
defraud th* ba?«3truv>t»» oradltora, ojad all of this ariuanoo 
t^ndad to iiroiro thlo fa^t. Tor %)m »ano rf»«aoR %im flnanoial 
atataa«nt aatl$ b/ iho liankrxiytoj tholr bookn of aooouat and. 
tha t««tiMGay o.f $anry H. Konnody, ffftjr«pro,<?«rXjr ad»iitt«ed, 
9or do wa tMi^ th«r« ana ar\y orror In tha eroe««axa^ln»» 
tioa of tha ^Utnaall (>«8ao, 

j^ritit; the oroaaooatawi nation of fioimlXraaa aovaral 
in9«aonln|[ «}ii«s^lono vrara a&kad kla ao to whathar ka kad 
tostlfiad kftfora Hafarao ^^stamn in ik«!s imnkraytogr |»rooott4U 

^•iVkft X 

iagjS* On %h^ Wiul ofT t^» iti«t.Hn% >mm His ^^mw^sru t^ 

v»y»«it|' »fii« )»Mit HI34 %.^m1fc it« wui4 net b«l.i«Y« M» 

und<er ontiu Br3.«>% lm& taken m ;e;r^«.t a«^ «f tiw t^ftii* 

prove whiit aoioiAJll,xuitgi ^d tHerw t«i»iiJfi«^4 U> ^ut» wl»«ii 
tmll^d, h» %e&%ifiisid %}mt %l%i» pAr% of tlsi«? ituvtiii^itgr 
giv>^n 1&o<foro ii^ HD'f«r«« 4$<»i» tmkfi'a xioi 1a^ hlsia«if but 
I6gr anotfe'^ar ways r^jik^ri^r, I«s w»ii gmt or ia i^RlJuttal 

Sotorauris, who i^iii* a ?!i«ia\«*i' of th«f defti^Ti^&nfft fir», *f)be» 

lift ftpp«8ur«it «• <% tritii««» in ili« ?ai!!« Bz^tlii^jre %i«^!ikn;tptaQr 

'3aeft, tiMt h* didi not :f9t»ei%lM»f mia-Stt ife «Mf6^ -nm^ %}mi> h« 
van n«t fiwa n RtftJAVKr of t^ 4*fe»toin^ fl^m» fi*p te«ii» 

9t X)m opinion, h^wev^x*, yM.t iM^r^' «&» «if'«'<»y in ;p»jr%lttifltg 
tlM i»t}iri>{iiua^iQ^i» of ii,)i« %vua»«3ri0i «f tia* ^viiaaoe iciviHl 

ioatter. X,^} %hs Mir»i»IU»«irfi b»i£kj*'uj^%(^ j^re9««i4ia^s mh^ 

r«port«r wiuj took tfetiw t«»ti£i5«ny t^t'tiflpti th&t it -m^n 
« oorr«ot transcript of th.o tftfitisssony glv«n V i^'ahw^^rta, 
ftn<S while tn^f ^»4tn#»« «%» r*tb*r h#eitant in isoaw sm-rti- 
ttiX«ir» in ibin y#gar4, »♦ think It wittt »uffiei«ntXy shown 
tiiAt %1m tran»«ript ^M»ii oerr«et. But wt do b«li#v«» t^mt 
all ©f thi« •«»» ;?ror*«r «'«'i4«iw«« in th<j ineiant caK*. -tofinBel 
for plaintiff oi>rjtencj« tSwkt it w«iib pr<pp»*rly «ni»itt«?l for 
th" T0t^vt>n tiM.% it wtt« an «Mlffld»»lon s\^nin»X tlt« 4*ff»»4gni» 
tending %i> •)!»« tluit t}|« ^oodt in 4|u«^tion wfru lOt pur* 
ohA0itd )»y t)s« 4«fe<)dMat« in goodi faith lutd for » fair fs&n^ 
»id«rtttion. Ti»Art »«» tiw ar^tca^nt aa^S "before th« trial 
Qourt »na i« :^r«ti aA4A, on^ in KdUition it i* «Aid th« 
trantsertpt w«t.« «k4Tal:»albl<? in «^vld9n9« «« « part of the 
yf^ ggsta*. net »al/ «MS»i»«»* t**^ witn»t« ftoV/ K«h»*rt« 
hia««lf . but iiJ^ tft^ffldiist the «th«r 49f«n48tnt»« ?hi« 
•xaMinotion of Sohwarta w»i» }!iim! iH ^aly, 19C?7, * f«w 
dA/A aftAr t'jsi<» )»Aitdcrupt<)jr pree««dings w#r<» Inj^iitutAd. 
ff« tMnk it *m» not »o .ilo«ol«^ oonne<3t«^d in $>oini of 
tistto a» to conotittito p»rt of th« r«e ^ n^ ^itg , nor do wo 
think it wao n<*'S'»«sAry to r«ad th« ffntirn lis or 115 
p«goo io ^roYO j»ny adnioeioa h9 th^^ro »n».d»» TUle 90ul4 
iteave be<tn done by r«^adinfi o«'rtftin quootlorwi aad anowors 
from that ox!in*.iuotion, a grent deol of thio ttvuaooript 
tondod to oho* tlhot tho pajrohoao of the good» Uy tiio 
d«f«ndajiti frofi tha Wnknipto w«» ti*orou;iily orook^d. 
Vo ti3lnk thi I? tmatioript var> not adca^oiVle in itcn on* 
tirwty. In the instant «»«« it appiwnrod -arithout diop-^to 
that ;'eh»llsaan nat«»J ao an a^oni or broker h9%ig*i<m t3a« 
b«i,nkrupts and d«f««diant» in tfeo jJureJiaoo and oalo of 
tmi good* ia 4|tt«$9tion* an4 ^n orose»«XRi»inAti@n of au^ 




&etararttl h« mi« &«k<Ht if h* v%« ii«t n^imrn xlmt it -v^as a 
ooiUBfuan },Aru9tlii<ff of i»<^reh&nt» la OMouij* «iigAi;«ia in th« 
IMM« 3>iii« of I>u9l,ri«»« »• th<» bifcnlejrus»t» , to :jura)w.«« 
aMiro)Mii«ii«« on ofAdit for th« purpose «f A«tfrtiu^XnQ 
or941tora, >!<» ]r«>i?)li9<> ii)A« ji« al^ht Iuit« h«»ra of »a«b 
A iiiiag, ^ut tchtti >H» natf not i^eroonsdlj^ oo»« iR coataot 
vAik OtttsU mov'ohitntft. ^ ym9 th^-a «k)iked if gohimrts 
Brotbem Isfid not b»<in sued in eueh <% oiano in I9€7 iDgr 
tho truot<i« af th® fira of 9)r«» Broth«ir», I«i4>krupt«. 
Th« wltnooti ]f exiled th«.t At th»t tino fe» -^me .-lol a lao&'a'bwr 
of th« flra of Uolwr«.rt« 3jfoth«r«, mn4 i}m.i tws dii«l not 
»«a«Bib«ir obo .t th# iPteoo Byptheiro aait' r. Jn r^ltnittal, 
plaintiff efr*--roii in •▼14«fn«*» « »«ia?:^.o»» li»i4u#4 h^ %'m 
elerk of tho SujM'X'ior .5o«rt of Ooolc Ooimliy againot 
Sohw«rta BrotJai^ra i« th« oult of th« tJMot^o of the 
estnto of Jaiio Broth^sro, banJtrtipte, mnti thKt the y#» 
turn showod tMat the euationa h&.<l b««ii eo]rT<i«l on tho 
vitB«»« at oa« of %lw d^f^ndanto. But «r<^n if w« 
aaowito ii,ht)Lt thry« «aft 9rrQr in ihi& A4)tai0 8.ion or thl@ 
ovid^noo, j<ot thftt would not warrant a rov«roal of Xlem 
4ud£fi)«nt. it it: 'sXoar tJiat thfr transaotion iMtwooii iho 
bankrupt* and tVi« daf«n4ants! wa» me tharouj^hljr orookod 
that it ieii iio wiwa sp Muront how a dlff^roat r«ftuit 
adght ^o oxpAQtAU at an»th«r trial. In thin otato of 
th© r«oord th« .1tid|j;aaflt oiwulci not "bw r«T«^ifO«4 for iim 
orrer in th« admiaoion of tht> toetiiaaonjr s&«>ntion<?'dt 
Knif^nt T» goooy . 390 IH. H, Wh«re it app«ar« that a 
jury* on ooaj^utont *vld«?no'^ and und«»r propor iii»tm??ti<>rt», 
aaanot raasoiiateXy r«aoh naj? oth««r coaalusion, th*'n th« 
▼#rdiot and \h« ^ud^rn<mt on tJw yordiot «*4ijiit not to bo 



rev«rRff«t» ©o that \l»9tti»y r^oord al^M 1»« mmde ©w th« 

ConplnXnt 4» «l»o raf*^*? of the ruling of th« 

tl5i« (intljr* «oiiv«»jrii«ti©n witn Oi"MAri©« B, arl©t.. Erl©t 
t4»tttlfl«<f. tbftt tH<* tjr«in»aript of th# teistisjeny ttt.te«« by 

oros!S(««xftmJiiifttlon h9 was A)(tk4i4 a«»rt«ti«f iM^OAcMn^s qu^istieiiA 
us to wimt H« «Ai«l in ® 9(mv«r«fttiKB witlj 0«9iie. The r«u,|>{3a 
t|(«»^''<l«f#n4j$.n% imlldtS aenae «« « witn^eit and «nd<^vor«i(i %& 
te«iv« hlM iMiiTr«t« t)sf ««t4r« a^nvwraation, thie, of oeuraa, 

ing thft i'lpaaoi'dng qu««tii<'na. In euoh siravtBaUmdee, th« 
«atire "sonvaraatton aamnol b« Qwlleti far by th« lmp*9'ftci^ili^5 

party, n fmishmtm;p Firff Aag.«ra , ao«. i^ Xa. ln«Mraf>g» (Jo.^. . 91 
111. A9P. 6C^, 

It ie alw oonian<le<l thai o<i«>«iiKai far plifiintiff 
Htt4« li3^»ro,»«'af an4 $ir«Juai<;i«d resaarka Aft th* pr^faanow 
Mtd haa.Tiag of thn jux^r. vn^ of iha bankru>t.a vaa oalla^ 
aa a witn«a« «n4 te-etlflmi tfm% ttftortly bw.fere th« bankruptfly 
p»oaa»4in^B, Isf^ jwiid )*i8 ai«t«?r-iii"Xaw t*?ftOO, wnioh ha >md 
barrovad froa har; that hft paid this about two iaantha !»«• 
fare tha failura, and timt ha barrowad It abO't alx Kr«<?ka 
bafore tu* t;l?a« ha rej>«l€l it. After aamw argument by (wtunaal 
aa ta athar qnmnti^nn put tn th«> i<ritn««0, oounaai far plaiji* 
tiff aaid that t% wti.^ thalr thaary af tha ^mea that tha r«« 
paytt«nt waa fraudulant. Tlia aaurt aaid ha 2iia(i ttmt theory 
in «iin4, Wa think tJ*at<> tiaa .notMn^ i» tha raaarlca 
af oaunnal that vaa iapri?9^nr« 

It iti mikA th«^ voaid iftad th© Jiury t» b«»ii«vig tlj«.t i£ tln^ 
fouad froia ti«i t|ff<»«.t#y mti^ht ©JT th« tiridefj^*?, fraud on th» 
pjiiri »f th« iwRnkiruiatfli ©*il^. It if©>A(l !>«' »uffiei«i^t I© ww^r- 
jrant a '/^-rdliot )»|^iniRt tn« 4*«f »n'4fi-tt.«« Of Qmirmm, tJ3« <!«• 
fftn<l«ntit woal4 not, b« iiabl® If fh#/ »«!t©<i ia ijooii f»ltli, 
teat tH« iii»t.rtji«tlon« aes»j>l.«i.ia**4 of wtr*? noi tub^*^©! t<? tls* 

Jury th«t proof ©f fraud on tH« part of th« 'feAWirruptt w©*ild 
not justify ft v«3rtfl«t again* t tHff <l«>f «nd«ntii, but b»3' jr« 
tfeetj ao id find for tto« -tlisiiiitiff Xb»j mi»% beii*ir# frdM m 
prftp<»iid«rr«nQfft of th«) «Yi<l4»«i'39 ttmt th<» i>urQl>ases t&adtt bjr 
d«f<ii»<iis.rtt» from it'lsft b&jtkriisjt* wnr*- not sM-an^ ia good f»lti* 
mnii for «. f».ir oonol(i«'ration« It i» efti^ that th«» liieiirue* 
ti^ri on th«' «ju«!«ti>j« «f dtmiei^iMt mm wrong In Umt it ThxIb 
to t«>l.l th« juxy thfit <»r«<Ut flhouia 1»'«» glir«tt 4«fttil4»ni8 for 
th« Asaotuit «hi<a^ ifiwti' ^&4<1 th« V»ft3KniiSit« fort^^ g©<sii«, Thle 
itt wrong, Diffffrt^antta m'^T*>> n»t «ntltle£i tt r«<sftiva suoM 
or<»ait «r d'-ftuotion* nlakf» . Trusvt'Pa v. Y.lwlnic . 185 115. ♦ A^v>» 
187. it la al »© «»aid that th« inwtruetion aoacerjiiji*: the 
9r»84»nt fair dtom8i«l<3'ratJl<m or vi^lun of th« jgooae «nt» ^rong 
ia that it trnw: not bfiiii«d on »nty OYifiiffne«, ITlust th«re waci no 
^t/riA^ncm of th» fair and r^ajionAifcio aarket TalttO, ©tH«r th«n 
that whlsh fl!M>w«d thi? ^AOunt pnld by dofoncl^ttt* to tho 

TlKt «Ti<l>mo« t#ii4lo %» fthow tlxit tls? 'sfOQleao sold 
*«r«» n«w pioeo ttnoione aa4 w*ro d«liT«r»4 to thf d»f«nU«nt» 
ft« th«y wis-r* r^fc^lv**!; ti«ttt c»rl^in«.l inyotoes w>»re^ dioliv*r»<l 
to th-'> a«f «aiia,r*» wh(» s^ro*?^ tP ^eduat 35;^ froM BU«h inTOieo« 
«nd timt «uoh d«dttotle«» yf.'T« ftotuwily nttdft. A witn«»o on 

tiAiMlf of pJaintJiff %lBc tftwtif li*<l th«l %nm faitr a»»h faarket 
▼lUuw O)^' tJ5i« iwcliimo at thr ti.--.*'- »i?8 »R in4i^»B,t«»d by th«s 
lj|ir«i»««« 't'rtilef th« tpssilwony of thir wltn^seft on tnie 

Ol«nt (ther** iiB rMjn« to t>itf! orsrtt^mry) to «r«r rant the inetruo* 

It If, ;tl«o Argupti lat-iit th® oeurt «yr««i In not 
giving an instrtjotion ©ff«r«<! ^y si«fiu*rf«intB, timt i ;«tru®» 
tiun told thwe jury, ah a »Att«r of Xm«« «v«n if iho^ iE}ttli«rv«<i 
flt»m th« «vi«le»«« *^t tb» baakrupis a,t tht» thatt of thit 8«I« 
•f ih« (rm<*d» t« tht 4«f«tnd»}ii», lat*n4'sd to 4efraud th«ip 
<tr«ditorK, y«i ilf th«., further b«i.l«v«<i tron tn« ^via^^nc* 
thfJtt tno d«*f «vn<4«w»te hft4 lao j»©tla« or kjsowied^je ©f eusto in- 
tention aad i}ari|>w*e««i XHk g©o<4» fer » gt3r<*««nt fair aoBBitter- 
fttion in g0Oti fuith, th«n plaintiff oe ild not r^acY^r. Xli« 
oottJrt saedifinsa thvj iiif<tr*«iotiaB Itjy ft^ding »fter th« Mft»r<i« 
"itood fttitli* "a* deflii«si in th«?*e ifimiraotien*, • W« think 
tli« 2«edifi«?itii»tt vme cl^-arly prcjji^r as ot^^r in«traotlon« 
0iT«n tol4 tte« Ju»y wh»it thuy mojit find «j»d«i' the i»iriti«n«w» 
to fiwnstitute good faith an th@ p$»rt ef tboi 4w/^M<iiitii« 

Xt to Mtkid tJjfit t1*«? ■ «rr«d in rftiminm to 
inBtruot thP jury on l»«haXf of th« d«f«aiIi«to thAt wh^^r** 

one 0ff«»r» ft witn*?*©, he Ut-'-rsbj' r«piree<ftia'»» hiia ris liwrthy 
Of b«ii#f, Th<© 9>3L«.intiff eall^d a«h«Jllsitt«i an & «itn<»tt» 
?Mid ftf tn)r»&r<'l« intredttd«"St *Tid«n»c« that ja# wwt* ttiswortJuy 
6f "bAli^f. Ho <i»»Kpiaint ie umti*'! that it w«h error to 
rwo'fivo tiil» t«i^ti{»}|iy and it ^mint^ in th«» r«m»ra sjnd ouW 
aiittod to th« Jwury for tti«'ir ®©i4isia«.r'«tiaii, th« intstruation 
«»», df oour»«, ;iHiprop*»r, But in ^ngf evont was no 


•rror* r>ol3«tlXiXiiii was <«nj j%s a witn#»K fer plaintiff 
to lii<?ntlf/ -Ih» hemd^vt-ltlne; dn' t}<i« Invoieae ef thi^ pro- 
perty wMoh di«5f?»nd,antB puroha-t^d, fh«!r<* io a© 4i»imt« 
altout hi* t«0tl34o ny ia fhim r««tp^r<i. He «!--a» tlmn c^ai<9ti 
»e A wl^neafe for *,h.^ ^ntvtnAnnt, Thi^ ^«rnt into the 
vheld transaation svekin^ %9 etiow timt Jit was \ow% fi^ ^g. 

would n«t b«li«Y« l^Qhitlbmii u»(t«r oat tit, f« thlrUe n» «»it« 

er«4.mi99 to ai^thin^ IM aaiti. the lotitruotion «^n8 entirely 
ni8l4»atli)ig U<3onu8« et:«;i(»r wlt}i«»«i»«« ^ih for thn plaintiff 
ana 4fff'iTnte.nt« tesietifled to faot« that w«nt t© th«r trim««» 
ftotlon 'ilfft»r<int fro^ tins ieetla^ny of l-^cthallman. It i» 
floaiQI»«t«»t for ft pnrt^ to lnp«a«J9 hXn c^*« vfttneee by cwsil- 
lae ftthisr »itnf»»«{i t© t^«tify to a different t«t ©f faot* 
wliiah ar« at ▼arifitna«' with th* t*^Bt4iw«gr |iiir»a« ^:^, < |^^ ' 
Hyp. <3o. tt, SEMSSii '^^1 'J^^-* 8^1* 

i*lttintiff «ab»ltt«tj fire iBp«<siial interr©gateri(«», 
thrft*^ ©:' whl'^h tlm m\m% gave, Th« 4«T«iidj*i3it flru'tinittatl 
«!£{}»( wiii^^h v^rtt r«fai*«d. ¥lit« thrae giT«n aMRid thfr ananara 
aa4c wer* i« mi:l9»st»no», (l) iiiUi the banJerupt* »«ll tiw pro- 
perty In qua)tti.-)n «ith intant to ^wfraad ttoair eri»(iiter»? 
Ana, Y«ti, (;0 Bid *.hf» r*,nf«5adant9 purch&s*' timt pT«>?<«rty 
fi»/ a pri<!»«nt fair eontiidarationt Ane. Xo. (3) i>i«l tha 
daf«Rdflint« pttrohana %n^ tttwi» ia ^sa faith? Anit. So. 4N» 
thiaJc th'oa ;atttrrog<%t«>ri«c iiara entirely pror^r, Coim «f 
tlia intf«rragatori?i!! t«a«-i«rod by tHia a<*i'«nd»nt« «<'?3r"^ wv^^raiJ 
*y tha^a ^iy«xt« it 4»ul4 aarr« no usaful jgyurpoae to dinauta 
the oth«rr rafuaad interrogatories, for th«;, wr/uia in no «i»y 
aff«ct th* rffsulii in thi.*? ?-jhb<i». 



In %hat th* walv «vl4ew.-?« ».« in t>i*» vmlm? of th«i» fj«t»d» «o3.<i 

find thfit ih<^r<» ^&« no 4«nlnl th»t tJ<i« n^nixit v^rv |M«ro^ma»d 
ftir 1^^ lt«R than th«* Jmnkrupttt iMd fi4sr«»<J to ^i^y for thwi, 
ThiB umB at Xe««t siRttA <rviciten«rQ of th« v«kXu« of th# ^o^a*, «n4 
it it> unccntr«diot«<l. In t)i<^iMi olreittttftiaoos it onnn^t >>« 
•Aid thMt tiM vor(tle% i« «%o««BiY«. 

TlOA jact^snttat of th« Clroult a«urt ttf Cook aoualjr 
is affinaeti. 


/ V / 

/ IJ ") 

271 - 24622 

JAMKS P, BISH(\P, AdminlBtri^tor 
of the JSetate of Idward Jioob 
Maekenroth, j[)«<3«a«od, I 

\ Appellant, j APPKAL }mOM 

\ ▼»• / { aiHSlJIT COURT , 

CHICAGO & wmimm iimiAiiA rail- { cook cMWit^ 

RCAD C'yPAHT, « oorp :rjltion »nd ( 

THR CITY OF ^HIOAQO. i^ oorpora- ^^^X/l r»/l/» 

****"• I / ,, 21 6 I. A. 64b 

\ / 

MH. JUS7ICS 0»CO?n»OR d«Iiver«<l the opinion 
of the court. 

Janteo F, Bishop, ae adnlnietrator of the estate 
of Bdvar4 Jaoob Maokenroth, df;o«as«ti, brou^'ht suit against 
the C'tioago h Western Indiana Railroad Company and the 
City of Chica^^o to r^ooTor daioa^es for the wrongful death 
of the deeeased. Suit was oomrnenoed Au^sust 27, 1915, ami 
a deolaration of one ouunt filed the aauie day, in which it 
was alleged deceased oarae to aie death on or about March 
31, 1915, Plaintiff, hy leave of coart, on Dcoeraher 19, 
1917, filed an araended declaration euneisting; of four 
counts. To the amended deolaration the City of Chicago 
filed tiro pleas, firot the general issue and second the 
Statute of I.iaitations, Yix; that the suit was not com* 
aenoed within one year after the death of the deceased. 
The Railroad Company filed a general and special demurrer. 
The plaintiff filed a sliailiter to th#> gemeral issue and 
a replication to the jlea of the statute of Limitations, 
The city of Ohioan* deamrred to the replication. 



Thft demurrers filed \)y %h«! tiro defendants were suetain«4 
and the nuit dlsiaiaeed at plaintiff *e co8te« to rev^erse 
which plaintiff proaooutea thin appeal. 

The 00 art, in sue tain ing the demurrer of the 
City to the replioation to the plea of the statute of 
Limitations, held in effect that the plea was good and 
the action barred, and ainoe the Oity had also filed 
a plea of general issue whioh liad not been withdrawn, 
it nuet he adBiitted on this appeal that th«> amended de* 
elaration set up a cauee of &etion. In suoh ease, de« 
murrer, even upon Ktotion, -aoiild not b^ onrried haok ts 
the declaration, Weatr y. Jacksoaville & S, R. R. Co .. 
24 111. 594; Wilson ▼. ^yrick. 26 ill, 135; Gupretae Lodf?e 
K. of P. T. McLennan. 171 111, 417, In fact therf is no 
oontention mide hy the lity that the original deolara* 
tion did not set up a oauee of action, nor that the 
anended declaration did not set up a cause of aotion, 
nor is there any argument made that th«* amended deolara* 
tion set up a different cause of action from that alleged 
in the original declaration, i^; ' brief filed on behalf 
sf the eity makes three points, two of wnich are general 
statements of legal propositions, and no application or 
attempted application of them is aiade to the instant 
oase. The third point which is ouade and argued is not 
in the case at all for the reason that it was not urged 
anywhere in the record nor in the brief filed by the 
plaintiff. It, therefore, appears that the so>oalled 
brief filed on behalf of the city is useless for it 
does not assist or attempt to assist us in any way. 
It is of no assict^nce to s isourt to lay down general 


Ivgal prtspoaltlone unl««( It is pointed out how they apply 
to tho parti oular ouso. Qsneral XogaX proiiooitiono are 
woXl undorotood, but the difficulty it in applyiag th«a 
to m pariiswilar easo. We must then ooneidwr the o«,»« 
against the oity on plaint iff *u brief &nd argument and 
what wo find in th« record. 

So far ao t'hft city is concerned the only quee* 
tion for U6 to pa«8 upon in this appeal is whether the 
amended declaration aet up a different oaure oi action 
frosa that stated in the original doelaration, Sinoo * 
there were four oounte in the amended declaration to 
which the plea -of' the Statute of Limitations wae held 
a bar, if it appears ttiat this was wrong aa to one 
count, the ruling of the court was wrong. The original 
declaration, ba far a« it ie material to be noted here, 
eet M9 that on or about March 51, 1915, the Rallroai 
Oontpany ownod and maintained e<^Teral railroad tracks 
erosBing a9th street in Chicago; that the railroad 
•Ter 69th street was supported by a etruoture resting 
upon embankments and wae ten or twelve feet above the 
sidewalk and th0 roadway of the street; that 69th street 
rune east and wast and the railroad tracks eroee it at 
right angles; that under the struoture supporting the 
railroad tracks near tho south side of 69th street and 
attached thereto, was an electric feed wire carrying 
a heaTy voltage of electricity owned and raaintained 
by the City of Chicago; that the wire was not so la- 
sulated as to protect persons who might eeme ia con* 
tact with it; that afterwards t^ railroad company 
•rooted a oertain drip roof over the sidewalk at 69th 


street and about two feet t)«Iow thQ otruotum sup,>oz'tin£ 
the railroad trades* so tfmt the eXeotrie wire was above 
thia drip roof; that the deoeaeeu, a boy aliout fifteen 
years of a^e, while la the exerelee of due care and oau* 
tion foT ni8 own saf^^ty, oame in oontaot ^th tMr; lire 
wire and was killed. The only additional nllOKi^tion in 
the first ooimt of the amended aealaration Ik that the 
City of ahicago knew of the erection of this drip roof 
by the railroad eoapany j^nd Icnew that hy reason of the 
const ruetion of suoh roof, the wire was acoesi»i1»le to 
anyon<» on the roof. In other word*, this cwunt of the 
amended declaration slnply oharged the olty with notioe 
that the wire wae dangerous by reason of the roof. In 
these oiroumstanoes we think the amended deolaration 
did not set up a different cause of action from that 
alleged in the •rigiaal deolaration. The original d<^olara«> 
tion, without this allegation of notioe would have been 
sufficient after verdiot. aity of ^^aet xntbuque v« Bur hyte . 
173 111. 653; l,lndauli^t v.y, Hodge a. 248 111. 49X. The most 
that can be said then is that the original declaration 
without this allegation of notioe was but a defective 
statement of a good oauee of action and, therefore, the 
3running of the Statute of Limitations was arreetf^d. It 
follows that the amended deolaration did not set up a 
different cause of action and« the plea of the Statute 
of Llnltationa was bad. 

The railroad company filf'd a general and speolal 
demurrer to each count of the araendea deolaration. ,'aoh 
eount, BO far as aaterial , set up in substance that thm 
railroad eorapany owned and laaintained a viaduct orossing 


69th street; that under %hB viaduot and neKr the sv jth 
end of it, attaoiied to the lower side of the Tiaduct 
was an eleetrie feed vixe carrying a heaTjr voltage of 
electrioity whiah wae owned ant? nmintalned by t>ie city; 
that the railroad cooipany knew of the presence of the 
wire and that It carried a heavy current of electricity; 
that it waft not insulated to protest people who same 
in contact with it; and that the railroad Ciom.p»ny erected 
under the south end of th^ viaduct at 69th street over 
the sidewalk a short dietanoe below the viaduct, a drip 
roof "In ouoh a way that said roof bcoatae aoetssible 
to persona and children * » * and thereby the said electric 
feed wire, which before that tine was inaooeeeible to 
perBone of ordinary hei^iiht became and was aoceseible to 
pereone paseinK upon said roof**, and that it was the duty 
of the defendant to protect and enclose the roof so that 
it could not be entered upon by children or other persons, 
but that defendant net;leoted this duty, and carelesely 
permitted "the eaid roof to be and rejsaia unenclosed and 
unprotected in auch a way that it bsoass aoeessible to 
♦hose who wished to enter upon it.* A demurrer having 
been interposed to this declaration, the rules of plead- 
ing required that the declaration be oonBtrusd most 
strongly against the plaintiff. It is clear that there 
is no allegation of faot in the aiaimded declaration that 
in any way would indicate how the wire bseams aoeessible 
to persons after thp construction of the roof. It is 
argued that this roof was eight or ten feet above the 
sidewalk, but how anyone could get upon the roof does 
net appear. It iu alleged that the wire was accessible 
to persons entt^riag upon the roof. This, of course, is 




»/-*• fc«tS'*'*f' 

rt3«» s< <j*ro«t«i% •■4 

manifeet, for th«re 'was only a foot or two betwesn the 
roof and the wire, but we are in no way infomed !wv the 
roof beoaate aoc^acible. The demurrer van properly eue- 

The Judgment of the aireuit Oourt ©f Ceok County, 
la «o far as it eustain<»d the deiaurrer of the railroad 
eeapaay and dlsmideed the emit at plaintiff's costs is 
affirmed. The Judgment, in so far as it held the plea 
of the Statute of Limitations filed by the oity good, 
and dismiesed the suit at plaintiff's costs, is reversed 
and the cause reiaanded* 


27a • 2^629 

CHA8L7?S ^, R-WSIUf , 


y, mmmAKm, 

CIH3UIT 00' liT, 

216I.A. 646 

MK, jnmTlC^' ©«30W!f«R ^wltTwiwd tins opinion 
of th« «30art, 

CHnrI«6 ^;« Reuslxav "brou^jiht an aeiion In the 
Olreult Oeurt of rjoolt County «g«inet 2^. ?*un«B»k»r to 
reooTor (iamagffs for injury to hljs per»oml property 
l0(Sftt«el In « building oirned b/ defpudant, otuBed by 
eucaplntj nteaia* Th^r© watt a y^rdiot and Judgutent In 
faror of jplaintiff for ^1059.50, to rever»e -^hiah 
d«f«iidant proveoutott thio appoaX. 

Th«? r«;cor(i dieclotteB that (ief«ndant was the 
owner of a forty* two apartiaent building in Chloago; 
tlmt plaintiff r*f%.a a tenant of one of th<$ apartatanta; 
that tho offvcral apartments were heatad by a ^tesua 
heating plant whleh wna und«r the cxoluolve oontrol 
• f tha «ief«ndant; that on or about the liSth of July, 
1913, onQ of the radiators in the four room apart^imt 
oooupied by plaintiff was rf»mov«d b^' aaf«nuant*8 Jani- 
tarj that 8om<!tiiae about thf latter pert of 3«pt©«b«r 
•f the eamo y&r r*h*n th'* weath«»r began to grow cold, 
t)Mt d^fisnoiant, by hie janitor, atarted up th« heuting 

v\mn%t ihf dollars of which w*?re loonted in tbe >>a«er«i©nt; 
tlMt plaintiff and hi» tupxiXy at thf* tlm« w«r« not at 
hoa*; ih»t ta« stMua tx&m th® heating plant netmped 
iltrough an op«n s^lpe wher<« th« radiator UiiMi be«fi r«* 
movad and danagad plaintiff* s household fiirnlture in 

Plaintiff •o .cvld«nc«? tenJs t© ahow that in 
July he Rpokdr to tha Janitor telling him that hie wifa 
desilred a radiatar in th«!» apartrs^nt remoTftd taid r«« 
quested taiA to go to the ai^arimt^nt and that HIp %-ire 
aould show bin Just w^mt aha wantad dona; tlnat the jani* 
to» afterward want to tho apartsAent ftnd plaintiff's 
wifa pointad out the radiators she dfl'Sirad r«moveds 
tl»t in eoniplimio« with her r^iju^wt th» janitor rataoved 
thi» radiator* tools thmt h« Md for th«r pvirpoee, 

ThA Janitor tatttifl«>d, on hehnlf af d«fond«int» 
to tb« «fffiot that plaintiff* a wife reciue«?tad th« re- 
noTal of ths radiator; that he damurr^d, stating that 
it was «i;ain»iit Ms inetruotions, Vut that she iAsistad 
it bft rtMaoved and pr<mia«d to pay hia for th« work; 
that he th<»reupon r^moTod th# radiator a>nd th»t she 
then paid hia twanty-five ot^nts, Plaintiff's wife 
teetifi'»d that 8h« pointed out th»* radintor to the 
janitor and that the latter r*»i'JOV«^d it and said notMng 
about it being against his instruotions, imd that siie 
did not promiiis smd did not pay hin for thf work. &incfl 
the jury found in favor of pla ijitif f , we must assjjuae on 
this reoord that they found in favor of plaintiff's 
sontention and Aj^lnst the def ensianlili. Defendant 


ooitt'mde tiutt uinac- %h^ radiator wns removod by the 
janitor oontravry to the instruct lone » nnci that in doing 
so he vTiiA hir«d and naid for the »nrle by th« pXa^intiff, 
he wae noting m» agent of plaintiff and not a* th« agent 
of the deftmtiant. Uaaer %hie written lease by Tirtue 
of whioh th« prwraAses »'?»rt* l«t to plaintiff, d'^fendj&ni 
waa required to furnish sttan heat, ixsf^ndant testi- 
fied that uncier %he general werlcing ruie» of the build* 
ing, if he was abaent from Ohiaago, nnd a radiator ehould 
leak or a pipe burst, the Janitor would mnkm the neoestiary 
rep«lrs if hf? wfte able to do eo , or if not, he would oall 
uy the renting agents of th«» building and th<^y woul.i send 
eomeona to mik^ the repairs, ^e think th<? ^^rk of re» 
asOYing the radiator, under thm eir^uBtmnotfe, was :?ithin 
th« general dutie» of the janitor, and if th^r't was any 
negligence in tliin regard, the defendant is liable, 
Slfioi* thwr*? was evidence t nding to show that thp Janitor 
la renoving the radiator did no*. oloe«> th<^ valre of the 
pipe leading to it, and although denied by the janitor, 
the eviaenof? in this regard was «iiffioient to warrant 
the Jury in finding that thr Janitor failed to close 
the valve after r^MOVing thp radiator, and we must aasuae 
that the Jury so fo ;nd. It is i$aid, however, timt the 
proxioate eauae ef the dam;»;ge to plaintiff c household 
effeots was not the turnint; f eteajn into th#» open pipe, 
but that t'ne retiwval ef the radiator was the proximate 
cause, and tiaat the dhar^e ef liability in the? d« deration 
was the turaini; on of tho eteaa. We think this argument 
1« unsotand for it ie clear tha<; thf turninc; on of »tesia 
under th QiTcuHistanae« was the proxianate cause of the 


4ara»ge dontt, MoNlohgla ir. «.aj.col« . 39 Oan. £up. Qt. 265; 
Solth Xft. gof^a<^nty«8^t?^ HXfip. /Jo . . 241 Ul. 252. 

that he l» mi% liablR fo*' thP mason th^it th»P written 
I«a«« p:^oYid4d Vmt im ehouid not be li aisle **for any 
damage dead or o o »nio n^d by or from plumbing, gae, 
watar, ttaftM, or other plp*?«, or oawarage, or the burst- 
ing, leaking or running of any olatwrn, tank", etc, 
W« think this provision of th« Iwaue ttoee not <30Yer the 
qu«rttioa of eaoaping eteHia a& ehown by tha evidi^noe in 
this oaa«, imd in no er^nt eoulct it «xou»« the* a«f end- 
ant tron his o«m neii;liR«Piie«, 

It io furth««r ineiatati that th« »ritten loano 
proyid@l that nq ohangas or alterations should be met^ la 
the promises; withrwi th« written consent of th«» d^ifen^^ant^ 
and thi%t einoe tho^re was no eudh written aonsfitntt th® 
prsniseswere altered or oAAnged oontrary to the l«ease 
and def^ntiant ia not liable. Thie contention ia unteuable. 
ft think thesro was no alteration or oimnge in the prsnisea 
as oant«aplattt(l in the lease and ^oreoyer urn tare hsT* held 
that tne Janitor in reisoying the radiator was aoting as 
agent of the df^fendant the point atade; is iasaaterial. 

The Judgment of the Circuit (Jourt of :©ok 
OouBty is affirmed* 

.■4 akdi 

277 - 2462a ) 


60R;.'LAN, co-p^rtnere as 

\ Appellees, 


E. D. KIMBALL & CO. , 
a Corp. , 

appe;|ll from 


coqe: county. 


^'•;^216T.A. ^47 

the court. 

I. JUSTICE TAYLOR delivered the opinion of 

The plaintiffs, Thoioas Beamish and Simon Gorman, 
co-partners in the business of horseshoeing, claiming 
that the defendant, H, D. Kimball & Co., together with 
others, unlawfully comhined and conspired to prevent 
them from "buying horseshoers' supplies, "brought an action 
on the case and recovered a verdict and judgment in the 
sum of :il,000,00. This appeal is therefrom. 

Gorman and Beamish were horseshoers, in husiness 
at 406 Federal street, Chicago, They had been in the 
horseshoeing "business together since March 27, 1913, at 
which time Beamish, the plaintiff, had bought out his 
father's interest and taken his place in the business. 
The plaintiffs were lembers of an organization known 
as the Cook County Horseshoers' Union. It was a compara- 
tively new organization, having been incorporated on 
April 1, 1910, Beamish was financial secretary until 
September or October, 1913, There had existed in 


Chicago from twenty-five to tliirty years an organization 
known as the Master Horseshoera' Association. In June, 
1913, that association had a ae.ibership of 498. The e 
wa.s a.lso another similar, though even older, organiza- 
tion known as the Journeymen Horseshoers* Union. It 
had been in existence ahout fifty years. There was obvious 
rivalry between the last two and the new Cook County 
Horseshoera' Union, to which latter the complainants be- 
longed. The evidence is voluminous; eight witnesses testi- 
fied for the plaintiffs and twenty-five for the defendants. 
As the matters involved are chiefly of fact, it is im- 
possible to give intelligible reasons for the decision 
of the cause, that is, such as may be und'^retood, with^ 
out setting forth, at least a resume of the eridence. 

The evidence on belialf of the plaintiffs tends 
to show the following series of facts:- In the early 
part of September, 1913, Gorman, one of the plaintiffs 
had a conversation with one George Ohallacombe, Assist- 
ant General Manager of the defendant company, at the 
Briggs House in the presence of Beamish. The defendw 
ant was a dealer in horseshoera* supplies. At that 
conversation Challacombe said: "This is in a kind of 
a bad place that we are meeting, there is quite a niunber 
of horseshoe salesmen that stop here at the Briggs House 
and hang around here, I think we had better go some 
place else or we will be seen," Gorman said, "all right", 
and all three of them then went out into Fifth avenue 
and into a nearby saloon. In the conversation which 
took place there Challacombe said: "The Master Horse-. 

insi noli 

; . j.v ■ . . - ■ . -e 'J t.-r'. 

oat noiii8$iI«8 omiceaac 

e»i:aj iXjs bAA 

-*»av: ;Xtt xoo^ 

Bhoers have been after me so , now they are after me and 
they are calling us to a raeeting of master horseshoere 
and hardware men which I am not going ■feo attend. I am 
going to send Bruce Durham and he will act for E. D, Kim- 
ball Sc Company." When asked that the meeting was for, 
Challacombe said: "Why, for to stop selling the Cook 
County iiorseshoera members materials, supplies, particular- 
ly yourself and Beamish," Gorman said: "That is pretty 
tough," "I have been born in the city of Chicago. * * * 
and they are going to try to stab me, " 

Subsequently Gorman met Durham, and the latter 
said: "You fellows will be up against it now." "Why don't 
you leave the Cook County Horseshoers' Union and gc into 
the Master Horseshoers' Association and get this over with 
U8. It is making it hard for all of us. The Master Horse- 
shoers' Association and the hardware men had a meeting at 
which I represented E, D, Eimball & Company and they boy- 
cotted you. We can't sell you anything," "God, don't come 
near the place. We can't sell you anything," 

On the first of October, 1913, Gorman met Durham 
again, this time at the store of E. D. Kimball & Company; 
Kimball, also, was present. Gorman and Beamish had been 
up on the second floor of the premises and placed an order 
with the cleric of E, D, Kimball & Company, the defendant, 
for some horaeshoer supplies amounting to about |90.00« 
They gave him ^100,00 in cash and the clerk took the order. 
After waiting four or five minutes he came back and said; 
"You are wanted down in the office," Accordingly, they 
went down to the office and Durham handed them their money 
back and said: "You know what I told you on Dearborn street. 
You can't buy anything here," "I am only assistant here, 
Mr, Challacombe is not here, he is the boss, you got to come 








-111* Idea 


k(.'0 ,ij~ 

".9 0tU:»B'l^« ftiW- 

ao am 


Zit t]ei«^ i9&Hr«(f »f the «,rt«Tne<;n o;i' Ih^ n&»% '^«y, 

Truok Da-iv^ytt tmio«, «>»«? iiorrla, mi offAo«r oJ* tb« X«iafi« ius»& 
!}i»iil f«i«wi0t«r»* flition* «nu one UikM H^rtrs^« Buaini?»tt A^^xont 

.CatiiXli»oo3s-b0 wr(»t« Uowit thif'ir rm«i<!*« ttitd %lmti »^i4i **! «tB& u^ 

lift twethMt toX4 'til«M t« »9fii«» )m«k ih« »«xt <£^ «v£ui he ¥«uI4 
£iv« i^«M» &^ »m^'«^iT* Tmis^ ftiJtl mil ttd ti^ w»x% 4^y'. Cl£»ri«ii«i»i 
|Hit eotttf imn<-ty (town on ^;jebalX«k<3(i«H^*i:« semk «i$ia «t«iii4 t& Mai 

JPriojr io tl^t U>%«f thai pXmUtifiv \m.4 ^ ^^ht 0;m^>i of %im a»» 
f«iid«ii1; t»nm^* 

Cn 0<s^o>«r It 1913, %h« pla^lmtitt» «a4 a laiiii 

musi^riX f%ii41« ««nt t><» '^<i 0» S[0W>Htir^*»« a 4«aX«r la imm^m 

tt{> M« isiiandt oftU «i«^d; *^/e« '&1^>' «jr« ttft«r »« «e «tti^n§ 

Ihi&t, tiM»y AJM» pu'^tlnis mm out. of bti«if}#ii« for tt€illiei«s 

^loketln^ sty ^li4««« 364, 1% iu drivixti; »« o>^t of busi* 
»«»£•** O«raaa,you know I h«^y« iMseisi £^64 &e jrou all 
tli« iiiiMt, for 0«d*tt t«le« tionH ««(»« Jti^rt;, for @«4*tt 
•Hit* 4oii*t oeiMi to mi/ p»lfto«>, iiiift/ ».ar& (lrlvU»|g tm 'su% 
of buBlnooo, 7^0 Miooior ^lorooaUooro* A,««eoii«,ii(m,* 


In Octolaer, 1913, Gorman went to I'cGuire's place, 
and told the man in charge he wanted to "buy a couple of 
kege of horseBhoes. When the clerk learned whom they were 
for, he said: "I can't Bell them to you," When asked 
why, he said: »♦---- --«- You know why." Some 

time in the first part of October, 1913, the plaintiffs 
met McGuire and in the course of a conversation, McGuire 
told them that he would not sell them any material; that 
they were boycotted. He further said: "We had a meeting 
last month, the hardware men and the Master Horseshoers' 
Association and Joe Jaffray and Duf field and Bruce Durham 
and Draper of Draper and Snape was there and you are boy- 
cotted, we are going to put you out of ■business," Also, 
McGuire said he was at the meeting and that the plaintiffs 
would not get any material from any hardware house; that 
they were boycotted. 

Some tine later Gorman met one John H. Elder, 
an agent of McGuire, who said, when asked if he would 
sell the plaintiffs anything: » - - - i would like to 
sell you but you know I can't do it, you know all about 
it, it is all over town you know." 

One Jaffray, formerly a hcrseshoer and a member 
of the Master Horseshoer's Association, tried to get 
Gorman to leave the Cook County Horseshoers' Union and 
join the Masters' Association, but Gorman told him that 
he did not want to double cross three or f o <r hundred 
men, Jaffray then said: "If you will come over I can 
get you $500.00 and nobody will know it, and you will 
have the good will of the liaster Horseshoers and the 


; ^«;i9' ta»lf^ l>Ioj- 

m 1>Xjuok 




hardware men," "We had a meeting here just a few days 
ago and we "boycotted you. You ain't going to get any 
material". "The first of the month Newbury has got to 
quit selling you. We are going to put him out of tmsi- 
ness if he don't." "liilyself and Bruco and Duf field and 
McGuire and Draper of Draper and Snape , went to a ipeet»- 
ing of the Master Horseshoers and Hardware men that 
was had, and you aint going to get an^^ material. You 
aint going to do any business." 

One Newlaury, who was in the horseshoers' 
supply "business in 1913, and sold supplies to the 
plaintiffs, in a conversation with Jaffray and Duf field, 
some time in September, was told by Jaffray, who was an 
officer of the Llaster Horseshoers' Association, that the 
rest of the dealers in the city had agreed not to sell 
to the plaintiffs and that if he expected any trade 
from the Masters Horseshoers' Association he would have 
to discontinue selling thera, A little later he was told 
by Duf field, who was President of the Journeymen Horse- 
shoers' Union, that they were trying to get the plain- 
tiffs in their Union and that the only way to do it was 
to stop them from buying goods and that the other dealers 
had agreed not to sell them. He was further told that 
if he expected any business from the Masters Horseshoers' 
Association he would have to discontinue selling the 
Cook County Association, especially the plaintiffs. 
About that time he was invited to attend a meeting of 
the hardware dealers and the Matter Horseshoers' Associa- 
tion and the Journeymen Horseshoers' Union; that it was 
some time in September; that he received the invitation 
over the telephone. Newbury sent his boolclceeper. From 

<3i'Z''> .''.■■," '^ ■»;■ 

ml 9lf 

" .iiiv loii ^o.Xm 

;r:'t ??o* 

In #a3ft .onadq,9 


that time on, he continued to sell the plaintiffs. He 
testified, "My business fell off after that, from the 
Master Horseshoers, and it out me "behind in my business, 
and I was obliged to go into bankruptcy," The plain- 
tiffs wrote and asked Newbury to procure for them 100 
pairs of rubber shoes. Hewbury notified them that he 
could not get the goods that he was boycotted. Draper, 
of Draper and Snape, dealers in horseshoe supplies, told 
Beamish in October, 1913, "there W8.8 a meeting held 
about three weeks or a month ago", "you know Eetunish 
that I can't sell you, that you are "boycotted, both 
you and Beamish and Gorifian and all the other C.H.U, shops,* 

About November 6, 1913, A. S, Beamish told one 
?ox, an agent of the defendant, that he d sired to pay 
cash for ten kegs of horseshoes to be delivered to Beamish 
& Gorman, Fox said: "I am sorry * * * i coj.ldn't get 
their order filled, I have it written down here on the 
book 'them are boycotted' that is all I know," 

The plaintiffs were unable to get materials at 
either Draper & Snape's or Paul & Fulton's, both of which 
firms dealt in horses^ooers' supplies. One Jaffray, a 
former horseshoer, a member of the Master Horseshoers' 
Association, told Beamish, in November, 1913, that "the 
only way to get right and get goods is to get together 
in the Master Horseshoers. You won't realise a particle 
of trouble if you do it. You have been fighting long 
enough, we might as well get together." In the early 
part of October, ITewbury informed the plaintiffs that he 
could not sell them anything. McGuire mentioned Jaffray, 
Duf field, Falconer, Durham, Draper, Goyle, Stevens, of 
Capewell Horse Uail Co. , and himself as being present 

-. 18 » iS ■-' vK 1 ;? J e Mi . 

Ti; t>J<.)"J..V c3 ; iiJ 

sdJ- no »'x9jr( owoJb aBiii 

.. .1.. i:.';;J^* 

,* .ttoiijBiooaaA 

-.»■ ^ mf -sT T r r J 


at the meeting in September, 1913, Newbury eaid his 
bookkeeper attended for him. 

One Garner, a horseohoer, about the middle of 
October, 1913, went to tiie d'^fendant' b place of business 
to purchase 10 paira* of Bcerlesa shoes. He told the 
clerk he wanted to pay for tnem, but as soon as the clerk 
found that he wanted thsm for the plaintiffs he was not 
allowed to buy then. Two or three days later, when he re« 
presented he was fron one Bailey, a member of the liaeter 
Horeeshoere' Association, he was allowed to nake the 

The defendants* evidence is substantially as 
follows: A joint aeeting was held on i;iarch 15, 1911, 
Wheeler, who formerly worked for Newbury, attended a 
meeting of the liaster Horseshoers' Association on March 
15, 1911, at which Octigon, Jaffray, Chailacombe , Draper 
and Martha were present. He attendea for Newbury and 
never attended any otVier meeting of that astociation and 
never heard of a joint meeting in September, 1913, Ed« 
wards corroborates Wheeler as to the March meeting. Ed- 
wards was recording secretary until May, 1911. He attended 
meetings on Septemiber 6, 10 and 24, 1913, He admits that 
at some meetings something may have been said by individ- 
uals, as such, concerning boycotting Beamish and Gorman 
or some other members of the Cook County Horseshoers' 
Union, Pox denied that he had et;er refused to sell to 
the plaintiffs, or that he had any such conversation as 
related by plaintiffs' witnesses, falconer, an officer 
and member of the iviaster Horseshoers' Association, says 
there was no meeting held in September, 1913, but various 

■, QviVifonfJ" 





'1.SW iirlw ■_-.... -.. . 

: ■-.I-. .L'f :i?>ir 



committees held meetings, which, however, he did not 
attend. Chisholm says he was ne^er a member of that 
association; that he was a hardware dealer. Ward, who 
was in the horseshoeing business, and a member of the 
association, and Secretary of the Board of Directors 
in 1913 and 1914, says there was no neeting held in 
September, 1913, at which restra.ining trade was dis- 
cussed. He wrote up the minutes of September 6 and 
24, 1913. IJo notice of a joint meeting of the Board 
of Directors and hardware dealers was ever sent and no 
suoh meeting held. McGuire a dealer in horseshoe sup- 
plies, denies being invited to a joint meeting in 
September, 1913, and says no such meeting was ever 
held. He attended such a meeting in March, 1911, but 
that meeting was to discuss audits. He denies the 
conversation attributed to him by the plaintiffs. 

Brown, the business manager of the Master Hors* 
shoers' Association says he knows of no meeting at that 
association and the hardware dealers to consider boy- 
cotting the plaintiffs. He attended a j4int meeting 
on March 29, 1911. 0» Grady, a member of the association, 
says he knows of no joint meeting to boycott plaintiffs. 
He, also, denied certain conversations attributed to 

Jaffray, a former horseshoer testified he 
knew of no call for a joint meeting in September, 1913, 
and that there was no such meeting but that there was 
a joint meeting in March, 1911. Jaffray, Draper, 
Duffy, Durham, Clancy and Pulton, all denied the con- 
versations attributed to them by the plaintiffs' wit- 

^oii biSi &si ,'ievs-wojl ,iloi. , " moo 

. oot.aoaiOii 9di til b&v 

. C — S. A , - . 

.:ooaQA 'flTOoafi 
, , ' . , v'S rioisM ao 

,• ..- , f - ..^'*.-^, - 


nesses. Durham eaid that Ghallaoomhe told the plaintiffs 
and the coramittee that went with thein that he did not 
want anything to dovwith theoai as he had already lost 
■everal cuetomers through them. He further testified that 
there was no combination not to sell them and that at the joint 
meeting of March, 1911, nothing was said about a boycott. 

Challaoombe, of the defendant company, said 
that he neither received a notice of, nor attended a 
joint meeting in September, 1913; that there was how- 
ever, a joint meeting about the middle of March 1911, 
at which accounts were discussed. He further testified 
that when Beamish and Gorman and some others visited 
the defendants' place in October, 1913, he told them 
that he could not do business with Beamish and Gorman; 
that it was not beneficial to the company. He also 
stated further that he knew the two rival horseshoers' 
associations had been fighting each other ever since 
the Cook County Horseahoers' Union wasstarted in the 
yeax 1910. He denied certain statements which had been 
attributed to him. 

The cause was tried before a jury and there 
was a verdict and judgment of |1,000, 00 in favor of the 

In an action on the case for damages, alleged 
to be caused by a combination, the gravamen of the tort 
is the combination itself; and that may be shown to be 
the result of an express oral or written arrangement, or it 
may be shown to exist as the result of the overt acts 
and conduct of the parties themselves, provided the 

nliTilinXMlq, »tli ..At mjuituQ. .aft«eds 

'.idf ritiv i'rsv fi\iii of^fSiumoo rH lias 

. «i* rf^,! 3210 Jaws lan^r^n 

•vmr, r> -r ,■ 

. ri-'.rt+i'^ 


llcXda^^i .mijjRf ic 


only reasonable inference from those acts and conduct 
is the existence of a combination, grankl in Union jj^ 
The People. 220 111. 355; Harding v. American Glucose Co .>, 
182 111. d51. 

The evidence introduced on behalf of the plain- 
tiffs not only tends to prove, but if believed, sufficient^ 
ly proTes both combination and consequent damage. Like- 
wise, by itself, it tends to prove that the defendant 
and others held a meeting some time in September, 1913, 
at which the illegal combination was arranged. The 
testimony on behalf of the plaintiff e, taken by itself, 
amply proves both the meeting and the combination. 

The testimony of Beamish and Gorman as to what 
Challacombe , the agent of the defendant, said in the 
early part of September, 1913; the testimony of Beamish 
that Draper, of Draper smd Snape, dealers, said in October, 
1913, "there was a meeting held about three weeks or a 
month ago," "you know Beamish that I can't sell you that 
you are boycotted, both you and Beamish and Gorman and all 
the other G.H.U. shops;" the testinony of Gorman as to 
what Durham said; the testimony of the plaintiffs as to 
what Robinson, an officer of the defendant company, said; 
the testimony of Beaaish and Gorman as to what took place 
on the two occasions when with a committee they visited 
the place of business of the defendant; their testimony 
as to what ITewbury said on about October 1, 1913, when they 
went to hia place of business to buy some goods; the testi- 
mony of Gorman as to what took place when he went to McGuire's 
place in October, 1913; the testimony of Gorman as to what 
Elder, an agent of McGuire, told him; the testimony of 

'or. r ' 

~.:.^^.-iS Oi, 

i-iXk -♦- 


'..'?^?>3rf . 

^ftia oil; 


xiu-i.-jsa -0 \fl£c.a;-3£ 


Gorman as to how one Jaffray tried to get him to leave 
th« Cook County Horseshoers' Union and join the Master 
HorBeshoers* Association, and the statements that a 
meeting had been held a few days ago and that the plain- 
tiffs were "boycotted; the testimony of Newbury, who was 
in the horseshoe supply business and sold materials to 
the plaintiffs, that some time in September, 1913, at 
Duffield's place, he was told by Jaffray, an officer of 
the Master Horseshoers' Association, that the dealers 
had agreed not to sell to the plaintiffs, and his fur- 
ther testimony that Duf field, who was President of the 
Journeymen Horseshoers' Union, said that they were trying 
to get the plaintiffs in their association and that the 
only way to do it was to stop them from buying goods, 
and that the other dealers had agreed not to sell them, 
and his testimony that he was invited to attend a joint 
meeting of the dealers and the Master Horseshoers' Asso- 
ciation and the Journeymen Horseshoers' Union in Septeraber, 
1913, and that he received the invitation over the tele- 
phone and as a result sent his bookkeeper to the meeting; 
the testimony of A. S. Beamish as to a conversation with 
Fox, an agent of the defendant, that Fox said, "I have 
it written down here on the book 'them are boycotted'"; 
all taken tof^ether constitute very strong evidence of the 
existence of an illegal combination. 

On the other hand the evidence of the defend- 
ant's witnesses denies nearly all the acts from which 
combination might be inferred and ovearwhelmingly deniea 
any joint meeting but that of March 15, 1911, It admits 
there was a meeting on that date at which were present 
Octigon, Jaffray, Challacombe, Draper, liartha and others, 

- .. ... .. w ;> ::'t£i> wo^c 4! fcXiiil nestf bad ^it90ai 

, •"■■'>■ i.;^nJLBXq »iiS 

.- ^:- . . .. , . .--.^.., e»i.IelllliQ 

.;;,.--.. ...,» ^nol^ftlc- jLeodBdatoR i»*afl?f '^'; <■ 

aciy,;. , ,-...»- *-*...- ,..,. ..J ^anaoilaceaoU naxncxft.^t'^' '""'■*'• 

:>ri.^ ..,.,. .._. aoi*jjioo«eu lioril k1 a'i'iiJniialq 9tli it-^ -- 

tai)Oos jijai-'v;.!. '■'■ '■'-^'- -"^' ' ." . ^^sw ji ol) o* \;«tr icXno 

tffiaKJ LLb^. ■- .. ....^..ajb icsri^o ©if^ iadi baa 

^. .-^o, «». >n,« >a«J4 tidi bfoa tieXaalJ 9At ta ^nlt^ea 
..^1.:... ..... ' ^ ^i^odHBti'itSB. nacixaRtifot »riit i>cJB noi^eis- 

-sXecT '*f' "• ''•-■••'-■ ' ■" i; J.9* Ivfri aiCi berXecioi ©4 ;f«lJ Jbxte ,CXCX 

[■■ '■ ^ ^"'^ ..,-/--,.-){<■ air! Jrat •+f ;,.-•- ^ q^ oriijB ©noriq; 

,,.,.. _ , .... iM.^jiiRSlat, ' *no5S ns ,xo"I 

;" 'i)Sjd'ooxocf e'i.F. . .,;. ' :j:oorf ©ri* nc .i\»o£> antitm ii. 

^•■1 ■ -vn A- r.<.r. r-o,T -j .- . t .-* ;^ .:-••'• i «».;.■ 1 1' + ^aoo aaxl^aao* neaLe^ IXs 

X« xJ^^D? >b^aaa8Kiiw a'drte 

-('?«-j.^^ 'j'i«»'? iir. jciiw J'ii a;^i;L ;:; WW vtvsLS 


but it is, also, to the effect that the subject of boy- 
cotting the plaintiffs was not considered. It admits 
that there were two directors' meetings and a special 
meeting of the Master Horseshoers' Association held, 
respectiyely, on September 6, 10 and 24, 1913, Not only 
is every conversation testified to by the plaintiffs 
and their witnesses suggesting, in any way, that a 
joint meeting was called and held after March 15, 1911, 
categorically denied, but substantially all the testis 
mony of the plaintiffs and their witnesses in regard to 
being refused materials which they offered to purchase 
and pay for is denied. Challacombe denies in detail 
the conversation attributed to him. Durham admits 
that the defendant refused to sell the plaintiffs 
certain goods which they desired to purchase, but, 
says it Iv&e because the defendant did not want anything 
to do with them; that there was no combination not to 
sell them. McGuire denied being invited to any joint 
meeting in September, 1913, and says that no such meet« 
ing was ever held. He further denied the conversation 
attributed to him in which he was charged with having 
•aid the plaintiffs were boycotted, Edwards, a member and 
officer of the I\^ster Horseshoers' Association, testified 
that the association never took any official action conw 
ceming boycotting the plaintiffs. The testimony of 
Draper, Duffy, Brown, Jaffray, McGuire, Ward and Falconer, 
categorically denies the calling or holding any joint 
meeting at which a combination was formed against the 

The foregoing analysis of the testimony, demon- 

, '^t dv. 

■Kistf i! 

. fta 


strating as it does the irreconcilability of what was 
said by the plaintiffs* witnesses and what was said 
by those of the defendant, shows at once that the critical 
question in the case is that of credibility; and where, 
as here, there are so many witntsees for and against, 
and the inherent impeaching discrepancies on each side 
are slight - the testimony on one side being siraply 
denied by the other - we do not feel justified in over- 
riding the verdict of the jury. Although the evidence 
that there w. s no joint meeting held after March 15, 
1911, is very strong, yet we are of the opinion tliat it 
is but a reasonable inference from the conduct of the 
defendant and others, dealers and members of the Master 
Horseshoers' Association - the conduct testified to by 
the plaintiffs' witnesses - that there was an illegal 

We do not know positively, whether a joint 
meeting was held after March, 1911, nor, positively, 
whether the plaintiffs were combined against, but, as 
intimated before, there is ample evidence in support 
of both, if certain witnesses are believed. Of course, 
as said in 111, Q. R. R. Co , v. Cun-iingham. 102 111, App, 
206j "The mere fact that a jury have passed upon the 
questions of fact cannot absolve this court from the 
duty of determining whether or not the verdict is 
justified by the evidence. That duty is by the statute 
placed upon this court," 

After a careful consideration of all the evidence, 
bearing in mind whatever discrepancies are shown, balancing 
the probabilities and giving weight where reason adjudges 




it, we have reached the conclusion that the verdict 
ought not tc be disturbed. 

Further, it is contended "by the defendants 
that the trieuL court erred in admitting plaintiffs' 
exhibits 1 to 33, They consisted of receipted bills 
given by Paul & Fulton to Gorman. They were for 
merchandise bought from tiaie to time between June 2, 
1917 and August 29, 1917. In each instance the head 
of the bill liad been cut off before it was given to 
Gorman. The plaintiff undertook to connect Paul & 
Fulton with the alleged combination by showing that 
a certain order which was placed with them they refused 
to fill. 

Fulton, on crjss-* examination, was asked: 
"What was the object in cutting the heads off these 
bills?" He answered, "Well, I don't know as I can 
answer timt question." When the admission of the bills 
Inavidence was objected to by counsel for the defend- 
ant, the trial judge said, "I think they are connected 
with the other evidence so the^' should go in." Of 
course, it may be that they were given out as cash 
tickets and that tiiat was the custom with Paul and 
Fulton, but, on the other hand, the fact that the heads 
were cut off, tmexplained , and with the statement of a 
member of the firm that he did not know why, they were, is 
evidence which we think the plaintiff was entitled to use. 
Further, it is true that the transactions represented by 
the bills occurred some time after the institution of 
the suit, but it may be that the combination v<as still 

.*;sr on idij^o 

. ' r:: ' '■'^ :, Xjl/«*1 \d neyJts 

t ... ii-Ti.'i, fi'K JBU 9r:j J : nrii ji jjotf ftaiisflBilOIQIB 

bam 9di 9XiasiS»al xJo^i? -r^, ^g ^j'ttir^xfA i)n« VXCX 

• /is aaw 3-J; 910 v,i;o .)'=i9a iiMX XXief sil* 1o 


" .ci 02 t'S>.aiiQ .! 90C9i>xv© iftiiJ o r^ii,)^ tii bit 

f i ,e>isw "{©d * , \rfw vocd tea: bib «»'• J-.r!-; .-xl'i sili- lo 'xsrficoffi 
■jI*iJKe eaur l^l^ni«Xq ^^ifJ- 3ini;-J ov tioirfw eonabJtvs 

-^.•^.'li ©11103 beixuoto nXXicf eai 


at work. Under the circumetanceB, such exhibits, in an 
evidentiary eense, are akin to declaratione agsinBt in- 
terest, made after suit is iijstituted. We are of the 
opinion that they were properly admitted. 

Finding no erior in the record the judgment 
is affirmed. 









I ooncur In the decision announottd in tlxis 
ease but 1 do not agree with all that le eaid in the 
foregoing opinion, I bolieve the evidfsnee in oonnection 
with the 80-ealled Paul % Tulton bills wa« incompetent 
and the court should have* atrioken those hills and the 
oTidenoe conoerning then from the reeerd on the defend* 
ant*s motion* In the first place this subject matter 
eam« into th'* ease through improper eros6->examinatlon 
of the witness li^ilton. Thie point is not urged hoverer* 
In the next plaos the evidenoe was Inoontpetent be cause 
it had to do with the act or declaration of an alleged 
00- conspirator, which took place after the conspiracy 
in question had been accomplished and was ended, In the 
absence of the pajrty sought to he affected by the evl« 
denoe (defendant) and the one said to have committed 
the act or nade the declaration was not a defendant 
here and it was net sought to admit the evidenoe against 
*»i«» Si>i«>« 1a, Pgo-Ple . 1S2 111. X; Snyder Yj^ I^afraiaholge . 
1 111, 343; JPeoigle v^ Hal pin . 276 111, 363. 

This suit was brou^^ht to reeovsr dsiaages result- 
ing froia an alleged conspiracy against the plaintiff, a 
partnership, which conspiracy is alleged to hare been oon- 
sumiaated la 1913. It Is net disputed that the plaintiff 
partnership was dissolyed and ceased to exist In March 
1915, The evidenoe in question ht..a to do with certain 
bills or cash slips given by thf> flm of the witless Ful- 
ton to aoraan (who had b^en a member of the plaintiff part- 
nership) in the sunser of 1917, Of course the ccnepira^ 
alleged M the basis of this suit must have ended when 
the plaintiff went out of existence. That being the 

, ■.-i:JiZ'^.Z':,-.:'^ov. -'JO 


'jr «yf*in*;« 

the evidence wae not oomp«?tent. 

However, the proof of the alleged oonBpiraqy 
ie so firmly eatablinhed lay th« oth'?r «vxdenoe, which 
w«a Toliiiaiaoue , oompared with which the Intsoapetent 
eTidence referred to was of Tery alight iiaportanoe, 
that tht adffliBsion of that evidenoe ahoudd not be ^»« 
side red eufficieat ground to reverse the judgment, KnJKhif ; 
la. S»Tiey . 190 Hi, 11; People v*. ^talpin . 276 111. 363. 



|27 - 24678 




OOOK saofTY. 

. ^p..u... i 216 T.A. ^4 7 


msu JUSa'I'J^ TAYLC® delivered th« opinion •<* 
th« court. 

Olftlnlnj^ thrat th'* defonUfiiit hwid failed to pfigc 
hia, thfi plaintiff, for f!«'rtain «5«»rTio««B in proouring 
a ccntract for the «r«ction of a l>r«w«ry plant, the 
plnintlff broj|5M »ult, but upon the tri»l «nd rn^ar 
ih« oloa« of tlw rilftlntlff •» wTidwuoft, tlip oourt, b«ln« 
of thft Oi^inion tiiat th^ oonduet of the .jlaintiff ishowed 
that ths ocntrant ««» atg»inrt public polity, direatetd 
« Tordlot for th« dftfendant. Judgment wae wnt^rsd 
upon th« dirtoKJted vardict, nnd thie aa>P««il taken there- 

Tho bMSie of th« »oticn of th» plaintiff io 
• writing of Sopteabor 14, 19C5, Bign^d by F. A, H#oht, 
who Ti»h<^ n he uigm^d it, t>i*» ^yrid^na'* ahowe, did «© on bo- 
half of the defendnnt oo»piiny« that writing ie direotrnd 
to the j^lAintiff &nd 1p ks followe: 

"In th»» «v> nt of yoa* (securing for ilacptne?r 
& Qonpany th« g-^-nerwl sontraot for thf. erection 
of thff liomphis Brewing ^on^any plant at li«<?!phis, 
Tennoouoo, I will agr^e to mnk-© you » ni?t priejc? 
ea th*» ilant r»>^iiy for use unti will t>i*nfi add to 


It anywhere frou t«n to fifteen p«r c«mt, to b« 
paid to you of kind %n<i as p&ymmn%» ar« nudi* te 
i:A(istn«T & CoMptttn/t your payments to pro rat« 
wltfe thsira, • 

At th« b©itoBt of tJaat papsfr tk***® was al«© 
written, "Aoseptdii, n, Meinahauaen. •• T&« only witn»BO«» 
cxasilitfii^ wf^re Heoht andMeJna>)au»«n, tii« plaintiff. 7h« 
plaintiff «ra« a trav«l4ng naleaaian who im« familiar with 
»ftehln«ry u««»d in oonatruetion of braving planta. Ha 
knmr Heeht of th« defendant acmpaay sufui also on« ^elmelderf 
a 1»r«w»£m«tar« ^nd ona MarlcXla, mho }u»4 foxmarly %««n In 
th« brewing bueineaa. About August 3, 19C5, the plain* 
tiff Intro duead i>Q}m(iiti«r and jy[ax')#lin to l^aht. About 
that tta« thpre bad be«n «om« talk b©tw««n %iw plaintiff 
and Schneidar in r«i;ard to tJna proaaotion of a brewery 
at MeiQ^ma^ ¥«nn«a«««, ^ad as a rc^euit* the plaintiff 
a«nt Sotmaider down th«*r«, iiaying his railway fare fxnd 
hotaX billg, in ordar to oae wliat oculd h^ don« in that 
direction* Sljortly nft«rwar4» 'tha plaintiff hisaoelf 
want do^Bi to a:<»apMa and togatbar with SdJmaid#r epent 
about a waalc or tan day a, easing qnlta a nunbar of man 
th«r# and undertaking to orgaisiaa a oonpai^ that would 
araot a ^rtm^ryu (}eneid«rabla «erk waa dona in ilaeiphia 
both by th« plaintiff and Sohneider in ragard to ouch 
an arganiaation. Ao wording to a talograra fron Uohnaider, 
th« brewing aosapaixf waa H^otually organisad on Sajpt^nbar 
9, 1905. On a«pt«!sib«r 14, 1905, this plaintiff want to 
liooht anu the writing abova mantionad, whioh la tha 
basis af this suit, wae entered into, Bubaa<)uently, 
so»« tlaia in th^ aarly |»art of Oo^tober, X9C5, whan &a)9n«i4«i' 


and iiarklin had eJia« up to Chiemgo from Mwaphi* the plain- 
tiff was pai4 back ^y th«ia th^> J3on«y wVdoh h« I'md advanced 
them in regard to tVi«?ir expena«B in oonnefttion with tbe 
•TganiKatiOTj of th«» brewery. On Octolu^tr 6, 1906, th» 
defendant wrote to th« plaintiff as follows: 

•Upon th» Vjinst inforrafttion X am adTiR<f»d that 
you will in no ^ny bs (jonneotpd with or haro any- 
thing to Bay about letting of contracte for th« 
Maiaphis Brewing ^om^an^'e plant r«fprretl to in tiy 
l«tt<^r of J-Jeptwnber 14th, ;o oosapany haB been or- 
ganised, the on© organized b^ing The •■.'inaphie Brew- 
ing k Malting 'Company, ?/itfi wnich you have no eon- 
neotion or iaflu«nc(j, bo that lay pro;,»orBitioa of 
Sftotember 14th must be corji5ld«*r©ri void «® f»JT a© 
I a?a i Mi vi dually oonoemed or oo far ae r-awetner 
& Gotapany ^&Tn to interest therassclYeE," 

Jiubfioquently, on behalf of th* d^^ fondant* Hecht 
wont to Moaphis and arrang'?!! for the plana and opeolfisations 
for the plant in eonneoticn with sertain looal architects, 
and on 06tob«r 21, 1905, the dof^?n4ant wrota the plaintiff 
a letter whi«h -aontaino the following: 

*Viut inetructic'fiB on tfi»? ««5m. lpjn«nt are to 
prepare plans and specif ic«tinn« and to ««nd the® 
direct to tho iSrtDrin/^ ooiapsny who will take ocuape- 
tition figures afc:ain»t our», Thifs b«!«ing thi» ca?-* 
we ^iftrdly think It 'will be poe«ibl<% for you nor 
anyone else to influence the letting of the work," 

On October 26, 19C5 anoth^^r let tor waa vvritten 
on belialf of the defend?^ t to the plaintiff. 

It is the testiraony of the plaintiff that the 
day aft>?r r«^oeiYing th*? letter of Cctober 21, 1906, in a 
oonveraation with Hecht, the latt'^^^r told hia that he had 
been dovsn te Meiiphie and htid eeoured thf plane and tliat 
the way the t>laintiff had orranp^a it wo? oatiB factory; 
that ne further eaid, *'lt in perfootly rif-ht, it i» aer- 

fftetl/ good. Bow Af y©u can us« ^^our influeoae with 
iiaimnider and i£«rklin eo l atm @«t tli« eontraot.* T)»t 
he further «aid, '•)§v«n If 0fiK4p«titlv« figures ar«f t«v,«n 
in v« iiav« All or th« plans rmiMy «ina ^^ knov mv dih«89 
it can ls)« l>uilt &nd wt heiTe till th« p«tt«raa rmadyt nnd 
Qm»0qmnlly w« «an «rrang« it in Bu«h a wny, «ir«mi if 
oomp»titiv« figureii ttrmt taken in, w« vill ln« lon^j* azqr* 
««jf; you )mY« aaTAd ue all of the erraliniaary axpenfiFe 
and nolMdy can fi^re against ua. « iP'laintiff furtbey 
testified tlidt iarh«n he asked Heeht, escactly hoisar lie stood* 
that Haelit said, "You are abBolut«iIyprot@<2t(»di if I g«t 
tJfte eontraot yon will get yo ar laoney. • 

On JaiAuajry 27, 19CJ6, the defendant obtained the 
oontraot for the erection of the brewery plant, a^d, eub- 
sequently, r^^iTcid as otw^pen^ation therefor aerialn laoneys 
and oKiligations of the brewing eojaj^any. Th* plaintiff made 
a deisiftnd upon th«» defs^ndant for eos^ en nation for his »er» 
▼toes purauant to his contract Imt it «a» refused. 

Wear the <!lo9e of th«» plaintiff^s «viden«»e, and 
trtiile the introduotion of n deposition on behalf of the 
plaintiff was being dlKOussed, the trial jad^^ announced 
that he w s going to direct a verdict for the defendant, 
being of the oj^iaien that the oontraet wae Toid on the 
ground of publie policor. He iatizsated, alee, that th« 
introouatlon of o»?ftain additional teatiiaony, unoer the 
oireuantanoas, ^reuid only be superfluous. Aooordingly, 
a directed v«rdiat in favor of the defendant was rendered 
and jud(p3%ent entered thereon. 


«ttf fiol«ntXy iilv'vtf \h&t, tho sonduot of th* plaintiff 
In r«gAr<l tft th« oonirftet In tu«Btion or the 
in Quecstien, itself, waai in tuiy wa^ ag&lnst publlo 
policy. Althotii^h th»» testirtway of th« plmintiff i» iat 
times »e»«whfit «»nftt«ing rmd perhapa »OM«w>mt diffieult 
tG und«r0t»ndi, y«t on the wiiol® w« think th«re ims 
ajfai?le eTia«a>3« to go to the jury* on th« question of his 
•mployrattnt and hin oomzaisBlon. Th<?r«» ie no oonyinoing 
iftidenrj? thst Schnoidtr anU Marklin, or oither on« of 
lh«akt iii0.Tft or h»i4 lM9«n 8ulbJ«et to «i,ny illegal infltt«neo 
en tho part of the plaintiff a» fxor as th* letting ©f 
the oontraet to build the' )»r«v«x>y plant Has oonoernod, 

^ite obrtoualy, con»iti«»ring th«? plaintiff*© 
•vldenoo, t}i«d«f'?n<iant oompany asay l>« asiid to Jmve ob- 
tained th<? e 'itract foy tht? ertotion of the br««r«ry 
plant as the r«milt» in grisat part at l«a«t« of th« 
t«rTiooB of th« plaintiff. Of oourso, th«r<p is no tiling 
illagal or at^ainot publio polioy in the? latter oontraet. 
A taanufaoturor ia ontitl«4, in ord^r to secure the efforts 
of an 9i^ (oytf or a^^^t, and to &9t a valuable oontraot» 
to proMiae the waployee or agent, a c^^rtain percentage 
of the ;j»refit8 of the contract. Yhat ia a mritter of 
buainesa b?twe«n princijpal and agent; it ir ra**rely a 
proYieion for t^rapenaation for legitimate servioeaj th* 
eofl^enaation raay \iP aumif ioeni or paraimonioua but the 
quantity <lo»» not ehange the qxutlity of the oontraet; 
au(3li A eontniot is in n> sense iil«^l or Gt^alnat public 

Inasmush aa the trial oc^urt of its «w» aietien 



mnd b«for« th« plaintiff's •▼Ideneo van all itt, directed 
« T«rdiot for Xhn d«f fondant, w« are of th« c)j»ini<^»t that 
error vas c»iai»itt«4 an4 that t^e plftintif f i« entitled %9 
full op}*©rtajiity to fut ixi all ©f Me erttlaia® and to 
hate It eubmltted to the Jury. 

Uaa(»r th« clroum&tnino«& th« jud^«nt mast b« 
r«v«r8«d ana tiEa« oauF^s r«;dan<le(l for a nmt trid. 


'^ZX • 24774 




ilO CO* » t| Corp. , 

0? CHi*i/y[^o, 



4 7 

MR. JUSTia?? T4YL0H d«llv#r®<J th« opinion tf 

the court. 


7h« plaiAtiff. Abo Co)m, brou^^^ht auit in 
the ^.ikunioipca Court of OhiOAg* eigainst the defendants 
the National ]}rea» Miuiufaattoriag donp^n^f to reoovor 
an allotfed >mlanoe olnimecl to h« due for ooiami esiens 
for th# 8»le of certain goode of d^f^ndlant to Searc* 
Heehiiolc & Co. He obtained a verdiot and judgiaent in 
th<' axm of $X300.14. ?r0!s tJmit judgment thi« appeal 
vae taken. 

The pXaintiff w»a emjtlojred by the defendant 
in January 1913, to »«ll itR merobBp.ndieet ladiee weajr* 
in< ait>j»arel, to the auiil order and Jobving trade and 
fpr his serTioet vae to reoeiTe a oommi^^eien of three 
per eent. upon the amount of goods eoXd and paid for* 
The plaintiff repreeented the defendant until January 
9, 1917, at vhioh time he organised a eorporation. the 
Oohn SaXea Co.} that name being eubeequontXy olmnged 
to Oohen ApparidL Go, The def -^ndant wa» to furniah the 





piaintiff em aeoount every etonth. tlMl» httW4Pr«V« «MI 
wmt ottjcrie^ out. The actual olftlm in the pret«at ttult 
X» Tor O09tmle«iottii of |lX&0«9d« Aooaruiag upon fiftl«8 
aad* ^«tw«pn January 1, 1916 and April 31, 1916 $m^ 
#6S8,18 Aoeryilng upon •ftlen ^«t<«r««n ?tov«atb«r 1, 19ld 
«m<l aant4ary9 1917, !#■» «i p«ysu>fit of 1^300,0© on y«^rtt» 
ftrjr 8, 1917 and « psgroKnt of #S&0.<)0 oa Juno 21 » 1917. 
The dlff<9r«noe <r not balanoo lo $1309«14« the amo tat 
of ihf^ r^vtXiat and Judgaont. 

Xho defondant In Its first afri<dtaTtt of 
oierito d«»i«cl tJaat tiM plaintiff iiad oolA goods to 
a«ttre, iie«buok & Oo, ao he olaiuod; denied that mny 
ooiBoiBBioao vroro duo; and sot up that all eomaicsiono 
hnd \i«m% oottlod and paid and that on HOT0»1»or 24, 
1916, tn« alaftotiff a<3C0j>t<Nl th« sum of |363.38 in 
full aowmrd and sail of aot ion of all olaiaio to WoTor^bor 
1, 1916. In a eooond affidaYit of merits tho d**fiBTid^ 
ant eot up that in SOTom^er 1917, th^r« wao a natual 
aooounting A»d that tho plaintiff aoooptod a ohodic 
for #4S£,76 in full of all eomaieoions duo on MoT«nitbor 
1, 1917. 

Tho suit was Vo^nui on !^0T«ail90r I, 1917 raad 
suwaons Of^rvod on tho defondant on NoTombor 8, 1917. Tho 
oheek for $4^.76 is datod ^evsnhor SS, 1917, On tho 
faoo of the ohook ar«tho words and flsuroot "In full 
]»ajmdnt of bulnnoo of oojimioeioue duo January 9, 1917 to 
Kovomher 1, 1917*. It wao aado ]>«/able to th** ordar of 
Cohn ApiJarol Co," iCrid^ntl/, it wao not, oa ol»i««Hl la 
tho oooond affidavit of merito, glT#n as *a full and 
oonploto oe<5Qunting of all oer&ifissiona due jjlaiatiff 




fr«« defffndant to irov«jal»«r 1, 1917*, 

Thr>r« rA£iain« th«n to b«) comilA9r«<l» the 

«6iit«nt.toa s%at»»d in the <>ri|;iliftX affidnvii «f merits, 

that oa ii«v«sAhttr 36, 192,6 * it v«.a ftftr<»«A th&t 1353.33 

•houl4 ^ ao9«pted Isgr th« i»lalntiff «« « full aoeor^i 

and aatiflfaatlon. It ia th« «Tid#na* of the plaintiff 

that he reoi^&Ted none of hie cciix'iicieitns for 9alaa ha* 

tvaaa January 1, 1916 taisj, April 31, 191i5 » hut af thasa 

«a3rn«d hetvetati Hevatthar 1, 1916 and January 9, 1917, 

ha raoaivad ttro pa^a^nta, ona af iSOr.CO on ?«hruary 

8, 1917 • and ona, af |»OC.C«, on Juna 31, 1917 of 

$2C0*00; that the» total halaaoa unpaid th«n wa« 11309. 14. 

Th« defendant aontiradiota th« plaintiff* e olai«, and 

inaieta that a payment of $353.33 «»d« and paid oa 

Novemher 84, 1916 was in full aatisfaetioa af all <i09»» 

niaiiona. Th»ra ia plants of aYid«nc«, bOMmtmr, Ut nhiom 

if h«Xi«T«d hy tha juiy, th^^t th^rr w«a m acoai^ntlng 

and aoeoM and aatiBfaotion. the fi|star($a of iha plain* 

tiff all tally m4 ara qaif pareuaaivc. Kachihit H, 

aaa a >ai^ar (of threa ohaata) whleh tha plaintiff 

t«etifl.jd ht get frora th** defendant. It anowa that 

fro» May 1, to Ootohajp/1916, tha iilaintlff »» not aalea 

mere ^65,118. 76. and the ooiaoineion thereon uX three 

9*r oant. aaa ^1953.38. aae* that thora vaa a eredit 

eiren of $16CO.O0, laAriag a halaaoe of er'^dit in th« 

•um of §353.59, chyiously, tha dafwndant wao ia error 

ia rtia olaia that the cheok for tlait ««ount was given 

in eattlam^mt af other oomcaiBoiona, 

Tha evidence ie ▼oluaiaoua, hut, after a 
eareful exs^lnaticn *a are of the opinion that the verdiot 





aad Judgmont we justified, Tte« pXainiiff pro«iua«<l 
flu^pl* ttirlden<3« of I1b« <!«bt» And tli» dAftndant fiiorapl«t«Xjr 
failed to ttttAlDlicli either of hl» iaeon»i«it«'nt dtfenftes* 

A niitt1»ffr of oe8t«nti»oi» art Attti« l)|r ti}« 
def«in3«Mit oenoeminis o«?rt«i.« qu^astiont ©f #vl<affin««, 
the enmikin&tlon of witii#a««e anci rsiaarlts of Apposing 
eouRsei. tf9 hffvo vxamlntsd nil of ih«», ai^cl &3e« ol 
the opinion that, in vi«« of wliat the ovidenoo dofiniteiy 
eotttl»li»h#d» tha/ luro without »erit« 

ITiadlag no i^atitariAil «trrox in tho Tooord the 
JlMMlflMHIt ie nffix'mod. 


90 • 24946 

imnloipal Court 

XXs« . ) 


i . A . ^ 


AppaXlmut, tiftio waa plaintiff l»filow, sued, dlalJKlaC HO 
r«nt due an Ujms coveniyat of e. written X««M» l^ff^ndtaitt pX«a404! 
^pymtnt, and cl«nl«a, g«n»rally, that Anything v»v due. 

Th« c%ne vas tri9d by tii« court » fmd the findings ««• 
for iiflf«Bdiint, uad judgR^nt we» entered on th« finding. 

tha written leattn in eridenoe «how« at dAnift«» hy plailio 

tiTf t» defendant of the tliir<J flat of Ko. 514?? lerth L«aTitt 

at wet fro» 1st dmy of Hay, 1917, to 3rtli day of April, 191», 

Itt it the d«f«nd&nt «}OV«niMjt«d to pny &» I'wnt the uvm of |460« 

*l>«yal>le in monthly in«sttUngnt» of forty doll&ro each, 
in «dva,-iO« upon tii® firot disy of «»oh jsnd ©ircry nonth 
of amid t<ftr», et the office of »tiid Frank H. atepheno,* 

Tho Icaeo io elKned 1»y th« purtieis individually, aad 

it under ooad. 

fhe loMBO, it ftppesro, m-iit nogotiatod en bohslf of 

tho lessor, hy on« Karry C. Hiloy, a ro*l eatftte agent. It wa» 

Signed by the defendcmt on Kay 20th,^ond on th»t d»te delivered 

to iiiltsy for «tephen», ;itephone returned the lejtoe to defendant 

Ado»« en «fty 26th, duly tix^.eutnd. 

The defendcmt on l«rch 6, 191?^ P«iid to '^iley « 

deposit of |4«C*5, fiAd r«ceivs<S therefor, the followini^; receipt, 


March 6th, 1917. 

HeoeiTod of w. Adane Four and noACH^ths doliartt 

deposit on 'ArA Flat ott So. »142 No. LeoTitt ^t. 

• ^ 

H«nt to atari U&y Ih% «t 140,00 p«r month, Opfe ttontjfi 

Bturrjr C, IUl»y.* 

On April 27th Mmat dr»« tain ')h«ok; for l»56 to th* ordwr 

of Hiivy, whieh iM dfdlv<^»r«4 to Hilety im Umy 7th, taking the folXo«> 

Ing receipt* 

•R«e«lTcd of M, A, AxtAiSB :liii;hty and noAtH>th» 
dolX(»r«, rent of Third Flat «t 5142 'vJo, L»avitt :it,, 
for Kay It June 1917 . thia lnt;lud<^a <mg »onUi*B 

^0,00 K»rry C. Hil«y.* 

C)n Ibiy l«t thft defendant Mo<r«d into th« fl»t. On i^ay 
36th Hiley remitt' d to ->t<Bph«n» |40, l«s» hie eci«rj«i:9Bion for 
e^curing the l««.8« . In makinpi thi» r^ifiittttiioo ho did not menticm 
anything ablaut the oonoooaion. Adaas paid no rent in June. Thoroy 
ttfiMv, iHsginning July 2» 1917, in the first dt&y of Aaoh nonth of 
the term, he swn% to ;>t«phttn8 ehecke of ^40 each, «ith one excop* 
tion, «i»oh of »^id Che oka $)itatod thts^t it w&» for a certain month* a 
rent, naming: the jarnith, but in nn eas« ««« the Konth of 3vm^ naiB«d« 

Stophoao eaahed tho eh@cks, pr«s\maMy with knowledgo 
of th« en<joraee'«ttt«k th«rc<^. no payr':«nt we*e 8»»d« for the Juno 
rent, v.v phona 4id not sako a d^fftand for ««eh paymat until Kay 
26, 1913, after tha teminetion of the leaao, &nd after Adavs 
S90v«d fron the pr«»ad«os, 

Stephana involws the rule that parole evidencw io not 
adaieaihle to Tary the tor^-a of thp written leaae. That rule 
l» elenentriry. Moweter, vm 4< not tKink it apr^lieable here, 
beoauoe tne matter in controversy rel«tea to the conaidtratton 
•f the written aijreerM^nt, on w))Jch »ubJeot parole cvl«At»no9 ia 
adaaiasihle, exeept where the *ff«ct of auch proof wsuld he to 
■»k« tho inisttruffieint itself void. MucfitA v, s*acord, 160 111, 

• 3* 

App, 588; Breea^au ▼, jowy . 209 III, 405; Hmis»U ▼. Hel>V^lBg . 
247 111. 510; U»yff ;r ▼. Life lCToar>ince 9 «. 211 ill, ^pp, 285. 

fh» reskX <|UfiQtion wnuld the roi fore mam to iM whether 
H4I«y had authority to tmks th«^ conceaoion. At the time of th* 
nAgettations his signa ^mrv en tlw building, he h«ld th« ImyB 
to it, he WRS, »ppi?rently, in <aontrol of the iiprtmises. H« was 
not cslled uu m witnoae by «lthftr jparty* '^tei^ntt t«»stifi«(l 
poaitively tht^t Uiloy had no authority to tt-stkc the concs^i^ttion, 
tmd th t it was nado «iiihe>ut hi» knowledge. It is URContx*K«llet«4i» 
howeror, thi-t hs? obi«in«d »Hdi knowledlge im i^ptsfsibtr following 
the tixoeuilon of Uvei lea»€>, cmd it aloe «ppi»ars thai hi* «a« iromind* 
00 thoreiiftor r^t loaat t«s tlma during th<9 9«Ar hy tho •tfttooaenta 
on Ad«iM* ohooko. Tbo principfi>l, who d«»ireo to cl»im thnt hlo 
•Ipeat h.'>o excos^od hi» <>uthorlty, ou'^t dioavov* opeedlly whon 
knowled«^ is brinught hoa»» to hln, othorwiHO he is prtatiasd to rt&iify 
tho action of th« Mnent. Wf^rd v. viillittma , 3<3 111. 447; 3«arimt 
▼ . filliaiBa . 69 Ul. S7S; Pohl v. Oavoioport Melt k Oresin ^., 4« 
111, App. 513, 

e« Oiink, undor ftll tb« eYi^neo, tho court ««t 
justified in finding that appolli»nt had ratifieiKl tho «etlon of 
hia a^ent in maicing thin con is® so ion, tind thcut ho, thero for*, 
c<:Ennot rocovex*. 

The jttdgaont will bo afririMd. 

34 - 25262 

AUiiiiH J. a mm 


\ Ta. 


^iaintf ff in Srror, 

CHiCAOip KAUJfeAys crisFAsrY, 

Defendant in Srror. 



16I.A. 64 8 


The bill of exemptions in thii^ caae h«o hcretofoxv 
been stricken, and the only error* aaaigneidi Bnrt Birgued are 
biised upon bill of excc^ptlenci. The cl«f»ndsiit hai» moved 
that the judgsmnt be BffirM»d. The atotien will be allowed 
and the ju^^wint i« afflriBed, 


I S ' 

5iO « 34^54 



onciso Eii.xx:wjSfd-v^- 


^i K^^iM &^ mrmtmsff awmas**.,» ^%mm^ at ?8l»^^t im» ttf 
llm ©f Biimj-a^y, sad f oa- 8 sslX^a s^ i^ tites of ^^l^, 1^« 

Kf^ ,hj 9 l^ 


iiw&ist wiim^m&l» %^ him St ^x^-^jr^ t%^% ^i^n ^t# im^iaifeljiS^ ^fas^ 
jiit^Sa IS %e 15 f^% r^Nsa ^!h8 ®&-$t ea^r irail m& mtm&% mat mm 

'f^ s%-fe«t mt «s^ ^U lilted fir^* tli» Imtili© ris4 ^y it,"S 

th^ «»%©3rifsl m&^t^tit Wi^^^i^t^^ Vs m^^Mfg mi mi^s^ 
811.1 a^t >>4J .aJ5s©l«94 .f^^J me ^j^Jt'isii^ ©f ©r<lli^sapf «sar« fe^ tils 

&^ W ^!m ^i^mt^ s^t ^^^ iai$%.ii»^» m&m ^w ^^t «ii ^Bm mam 
a*t hiO* the faajtt asM ^i*« stUffdJ^^* 18i« pi«®t ^a^lt attllis^ 
■ i.»-3;^rs on "b©"^ «il^« bstt f@r^d t@ ^^t#^ ^!ie triw^r vi&d. i^^ him 

■:-!:?aMl« «fa^ ^^m% :^ t^^% trmi %tm mt'm mXU He mid m Im^tm^. 
©aat lias isf S®4«i« -ft^msEast ^^&t .fr«® li^^ss^o b# ^^04 a^$^ ffois ^- %c 

■-h» ti^TSimt «9ur m nllm ^t fm£ %%mm m fm%^ ^^m mils m^ 
tottmt m^9 E^im ®* ^3*9«BS9 of ^ f^«t t« ^%^ ^« P«ifit fl^ 

•Xn c-r 

•« 4 * 




Wi^ '3e2S?X' 




"^ c 



?.& s^'Q 

^ ^^a 

" p^^^ 


f hIIm^s I^ 

^ V* Z.<3 



' .T^i <i 




, 13^1 1^ 



fisrt -^ 

, lu 


"'f c/ J 

nn. , 


< 4 


-* i 



^1f in 

/osr i^ 




a~ti*oM»s Sf 

-^ '» i *' 

' ^:^i^ 1^ ^^'' 

t %tm tiriiT'sr 


^t ' l-'\_ 

_ ?c5|>3ir ixi^a-cit^iw 



. ->«£fe? 

" 'i Xn^ i^ a':^^?^ , 



, ^ 

m& l3^^iUg^iia» tmiXd imm ^ssm^ fe^«^tf ^l*^t^ %QS^r ^0 i«tis 
f^ hi» &^m mintf,» tjmtm&tUm nl %&Xd t&^ tm-% *^i^ ^3M«*ll3r 

®t«« tm$mi ^^ t&^s^t^Mmm »» it a«3rSjg» m^^ ^tary omXA m% mil 

^f#ifcla«t«* i2sstafis<?tli«»a Mm* 1» ;: ^md S, ill mme l^jstmsti^ms 
the #aa^ «f «^ &^m%d0m, ^a4 te tliat 3?®?^^ij% ^mt& mi^^:t^4 hf 

&X^ M«»m^ it ISMS m» mar iM»%m'^i,mi m%* toM tht? ^tijgr «mt 

t^KT* wsis ^ M wm ^oi^^xUgm ®C »»|^i^^^i63?$« It ^^ vmsmm^^^mrf 

\-/u/ (Vj 

<@BtICAO0\0G. , fX 

S^ 4&^t^ 

/ ,,'--> 

f i^ ^T^T, 

Of CkUm^* 

216I.A. 648 

mi^pfwi^ tBs mMtm of ttm o^^. 

^rom^t to it f&t m^ ^m^» 

»^««^ f»3p the Sane^/Ooii^iGit I i© l>« m,nx^.^^ t& it *it t3i« 




Sara*? «sir?smt ps%m» th^^t other p*.4iit ^£^ trim ^^^& t^tml-A ©&a*s6 

fQ«srte#a |:'f@yl<dte9 1fe.^t «kli ^a* sl^ffls •f^ir ^e M^^^^mm ^iim^e O^mtf 
nhtaX h& &Ul»d %& it ®ja« paid t&s mmMiXf*^ It la ifcet aiapafesd 

fii© i33Ulii «f i^l^tlstlf^ l» «iKmr is thifct laii.iN^^<^ 4« uiulsir 

t^# «ts^ d@s^ f^ c^^a^ta, it «&# smtitXt^ m %hM 0xmm pmf%% 
e^gjf ^8irr#a% pri«ea| t&a* s3ii#t ih^j^ ©^^s s^t&S^ ^a p;pe>iritti«a« ^ 
IP=&ir^:rs|-^ t^ji» "^i ooirl l»#M ^&% tlie ©imtrstist i^k^X^ n©l l3t n^ 
e©B-3 timed. ^ thlrJt Ifes «®«rt «&» rl'^t* V^^t iS all ws^l: d^as 
la iix0 %x%& 4g^i»xims8^ ««e %» ^ siiiii§i»s£ && it ma. m& p^ifi^imi 

^3;3@i£»« »«^ »»(|s ant ^ th^t %}i^a£7* t^ ps^&f 'did -mt ^<^w aiaf 

MavJl T«rc 1919 

9e - 34$&4 

% oorr©?»iloBi, 

▼ . 

JACOB t. P^Emii ^ 

PUiotlff In frro 

B«f«nlefi| iB Error, \ II?POF TO CIT^rTTIT COUBT 


..1 216I.iV. 648 


For the reason* Indioftted Ir th« oplalon this day 
fil«<i la tb« o«8t of ?«»t Dlslnfeotlcg Co., def«ji<l«nt in «rr©r, 
ftgainet Harold I. Kopp»l«»a, plalRtlff In trror, JTo. 34953, th« 
order sad ^ulgwent cf th« Clroult 5©urt wtXl Iw affirtwd. 



Maroh Ttriii, IS 

97 > S4S55 

a oerporipttlen. 

D«ffiid«Jit In Error, 

▼ . 

U- (AJ 

EiFOH TO ciBctJiT m^m 


16T.A. 648 

For the rttikSfont Icdloated In th« oplnloa this day 
filed In tli« oa.0« of Weet Di(rinf«otlng Co., defeadUiDt in crror^ 
agAii^et Hurold I. Koppftlmaa, plaintiff 1b orror, lo. 24953, 
tht ordtr aad Judg^viit of the Clrotiit Ccurt «111 b« affiriwd. 




•8 - SMH 

HaTob yttm, iai9. 



2%f«A(t«»t l|f frror. 


Flalnllff l» frror. 


! 216T..'V. 649 

MR. JUSTICE cmxi?irr bi!,ttfri:d twi ofiitiok or rm ooupt, 

7»r thft r«i>e(H9ie lr)4inttt«4 ici th« opinion tbls 4&y 
filtd la tho 09ii« of TeH Sl«ir.f«oting Co., 4«f«ttdaiit In Arror, 
EgRinet Hare 14 I. f«s?p«laitn, plaintiff In «rror, ^o, S49S1, 
th« ord«r «nd ju4g»ent ©f tk« Cir<ttiit Court will b« afflr«»4. 


n ^ 

1' ^'. 



ma<ih rdfm, 19UJ 


09 - 3495? 



ft eori-orstion. 

Cftf«QvlftQt ifi fftor. 

▼ . 

'^ / ) 

It Iff/in Error. ) 


16IX 64 


For th« r«a#<m» Indloattd In th* ©pinion thi« diBiy 
fiUd In the ««»• of ttirt IHftlTifaotIng >. , i«f«n'iwi1t In errcr, 
•Kftinet RftTold I. ltopr»l««B, plaintiff Ifi ««Tor, Wo. 349S3, 
tfe« or<Ur and judgiwsnt ©f tfc« Clroult Ccwrt »lll b« «,fflriw4. 







IMtJ.ti ^',AJ3 ?:f CO stA!Jy, M oojr- 
poratioti, «t sii 

^Ai,:,«xi/nt«. «1 6 1.A. 64 9 

ojjlnion of ih«» ■joart. 

Bjr this Hj>p»ftl th« cl«fffrjdant tJOBigpftny eetJks t© 
r9T«r«« « Judgsa<«nt for 15612, SO, re90T«r«d ^y the plain* 
tiff ©n th«? ^rdiat of » jury, Thio i« th« aeocind «pp«Al 
of this «3H«« to thie 30 .ri. Cn Xht* torm'^r is^^tQeX, a jttd|t«> 
aent for tib* jtlaintiff ■*'•'■»• r«Yftr»«d on <i'?rtttJln orroro of 
]>roee<laro ana thfl enu^o w&a rejaanii^d to iho airou&t Court 
for A nmt trial* ho fitot© iurolYoa in the oaoo suffi* 
ol«ntly appear In th* for;i»?r opinion. 20© 111. Apr>, 404, 

Oa thig api><»al tho sief wtisJant ngain Q<Jiai>lains of 
a nuMb^^r of ruiings of thf oourt on tli» adTaission f ©ridenoo, 
Tla«r« #«» ISO orror tor tl**? trial oeart in refuring to allow 
tho <i«position of the witneeo Caaooll to l$« r^&d to the 
jury, for the ro^asone we polato^ out on th« laot appeal. 
Tho «o>;rt properly suriainoO plaintiff 'a obj^'otlone to 
quoationo put to thn witn^tio MMigill whtan h» w^io aokod 
to otBte tht roaaon why the ^efmnUmt ha<i refucoc to pay 
the loaa, and alao plaintiff*o ohjootion« to ^u««tlona 
put to ih»j pXaiatiff v'nmn tm wji» aaked whether he had 

any ep^einl p^rnnn In mind whim hm «t«t«(! in th(R proof 
of loe» that thn fir« w»b l»<Min4iiit]ry. Thoee s!«tt»?r» had 
notiiin#s to ile ^sith th* d«t«rjni»*tlo«ii of th« iteuee inv6lr«4^ 
W« fia<l TiO ^rror »:e oonifflnd«4, in aonnpotion with th« 
tQBtisson^ of ite** vitiif^»8 .'ik»li«ii>ttry. jI« h»a !»«»» |i«!:T»ltt««l» 
OB hi«» «3t*®in«tloa by €»um«*'l for ■d»f«?«i«at, t© git* ffoaus 
irrelevant i«<stl3W)ny in tiv? or^ay of oon^^rinn th# liliraiy 
«ii4 furni8>ii?J€« of plaintiff »« ho»«», for thv; log»fi of «tddti 
thi« action had "bo'w broui^ht, with oths-r houoer in ihn town 
wh«r« plaintiff Xiye'l and te ®t«it« nrh»th«r th«»>' wosre aboirt 
•r 1»«lo« tlift aTermge und whew elijootion m^m finally inter- 
?OB«d by (sounoftl f «r th*? yil«intiff» thff oourt asked why 
9'k^e(ition ha i rtot b«on r&iaod somi^^t at to that lins of 
iostiinony and it « • otriokon out. #• are of th<» opinion 
tla&t <i#f#mi«nt*R ?a«« wao not la «tny -aar ^rojjudioofl \]y ai^» 
thlttf ilm Qourt nnxld at tiiat %ttm, 

C^o or tiro of %h« vitn^^csaeo, jn«nl»«r« of t)M» effiolal 
board of th# olxtiroh of -wM'Jrtii. plaintiff ^rm the paetor, re» 
forrod in their ioiitiraony to a mootiau of tJtet itoard, held 
during tho v««»k fdl lowing iho fir* ttnA tec^tified oono«rfUliig 
all«s«d ^aT^raationa 'vith plaintiff at tMX tiesa. Ca 
oroac-oxisinlnfition, oounnel for plaintiff vont intes thra quee» 
tion of r««!Oltitioa or rot** of eonfidonoe in the plaintiff, 
adoptod by tl»« 'aoqird m% that 8S<>«ting. Thie waa inoo«p«t«nt 
tmii irrolt^Tant* it waa not proper oroaeooxamination n& it 
bad not basn the oubjeot of direot eacajtQination and it had 
nothing te do with th« i««u««. It Ib urg«d that th<» wjurt 
orrod in denying defenflant*o motion to otrike out thio 
tftstiiRony whicifa )««tion wa« nnde at tll«> olo^c of th<« orooo 
•Jta»isation. #a do not oonaiU^^r tl»«; praaenee of thin taati<* 


siten^' in %U« r«(mr4> nm fvirniahin«i; as;/ ground for a r«T«r««.l 
•f ibp jttdt^«tnt. Th« mAttf^jr mut trivial «ai4 <»« b«li«v« 
eottia bfiv* ]jKid na thing to ao wit^ thr,? Ju3ry*i$ d«ttAx%diaatioa 

All \h« jr«aAiitl»s ^jrrojrn a»«ign<%(3i b/ the aef^nd* 
imt, IfxvolTing rulings &n ihe <?vid<»n<^« h«iy« te <tio with 
th« l««tiaoiijr of Ero. Oottiua, 3;»l&intiff*e ^ife. One of 
tho reasons n«9<»BBltotini: th«* r«vf»r«»l of tlrwi? fors^er 
Jit4|SiMni ri»oov«r(*«l ^ th.» p3l«i^lntiff in tiiie «iai)«« ft« 
point«»d Out in o»t pr«irioua opinion, «»« ft" faot that 
oltheugla is&rs. Oottam had t«etifl«<^ that oho Jcnov notMag 
AlHiut th« taIuo of Vnn^ booico in hor Jamo'biind* «r li'bTmryr, 
•ho ninr47th«Xo«n was permitted to i^taiff -mhtkl oho ^liov«rd 
thtm XM \)« worth. mfo*niSi»n% o^oin ooiai^lains tliitt, net* 
withstasii^ing lior i!ulciitt«d ignor«no« on this subJI«rot» &h0 wai 
j^ormittftd to gutASS at l.h^ v«ilu« of t^ books tiui^ plaoe i» 
▼alu* of $2333. &0 on bho oont^nis of %Vi0. liT»r%rjf, inoluiiiag 
tho books, to \mr» <3srofully o.K«min<»4 h«<r t^oiinoiiy fts «• 
find it in th«» rooora (tn<t ^« find th^t no opinion of "irn. 
Cot ton* s as to tho t&Xu« of Xiie 'boolcs wns poi^ittedi to ^ 
to the jury. Rl»« i» shown by h*»r tostioony to hftve !!>♦!•«« 
•ntiroly ooa^iotont to toRtif>' fts to th« values oho ^nvo in 
h^r tosti3»on]r»* InolucilnjiC thoeo she ipiYO a« to •^ttrtnin 
psintinns thnt ivero inToiY«>d, If h^r ooAjkOtoncgf to tostifjr 
OS to Tsluos wnm to %o dotorsiinod by oortsin isolated quos* 
tions «jind ans't^'ors, to «M sH our nttention hoe %«f^n 3sill«d« 
she might looli ho h«ld to Tm^m htynn inoota|}«^t«nt, hut a 
roodiag of aXl h«T tostioiony is oonvinoing to th« oontraYy. 
it its ooatondod ohs tostified ahout o«?rtairi |)rop«>rty for 
ohioh plaintiff m^uisht to ooll^ort, «hiah belonged to h«>r 

brother* e.nA t^it it wifc« error to i>«smit imr %o 4» »«• 
1h,9 only iasta»o« of t)i«t kin4 Involved a fS;u&»tAty of 
aiteiOf at I«ast hmXt of vhioh oho o^id wao l^^rn sm4 th4»f«» 

apoa o«« hmXf o^ y»« «a»ouKii ropreootiUriig th« «ii3Lle|E»4 vuluo 
of tlirt stia«il« (tSS^OO) waB ttrlak«m out ft«d plaintiff* 
ooaaeol otaioa tia«t %)my iMdo no alaim for it« 

Tho onurt 4iit not or^ !:» ouotidnix^^ ^l,ftintiff*fi! 
o1»Jeotlo}io to <|Uftatlono AOleed flrn, Cott«ua au oro«s «aM»« 
iaotioot in «^egitr4 to i:iri# salajy Ck04 omploya-^t of l»«r 
titt«lMta4 trior tu lifto ooesing to tHie> g»»itiitr!ir froio Bn^s^amA. 
Uacl«r the otAtttto Mro. Cott«ni w»» oonp«>t#Qt to tf?»iify 
oaljf oa th« tiuo-ttioao of tho property 4<sBtrojr«d and it« 
v«lu«, (111, £Jt« oiu ftl« »0Q« 8} 9Urt})«i%Mir«» the ^ueo* 
tioKo r(ifv?rrii4 %o v«ro aoi 9ro.|><>r orooo «xiMaiiiAtioii« 

Ctotmool for dof«ml»nt« in srooe oxufc^iniae Urm* 
CNittwm, ttokod hor about tht variouo tSkS^p^lnttgt^^ntn imr ha»» 
band fmd flilod ao a «ainiotor in thin ao.uitry and tb& 
oalartoo ho 138.4 r^a€>ivo4« ?Ma lino of orooi oaumiaatioa 
vao ittot ao ia<»»ra]?»t«nt as tlsvs ono lijiot r»f«rr«»4 to, f9i}t 
%h» r<^aaonii otatod, but plaintiff nmtti^ n<s obJ« nation to th« 
qu^etiona and. In aa»w«<;riag, Mro, i:^ttatt otiKt'NI tHe» aala]^ 
hor liuslaaiMl had r«e«iv«4« and aloo r«f<9rr<ftl to o<^rtaiA 
ForqHioitoa t^&t o«mo to him. ^HsuaRstl for d^foadant 
Lfiov^d to etriko out tluftt yunrt of th« afiftv(M»r r^forrlnis ta 
l>orqui«it«o nxid oont^^ndo thot th» oourt errad in denying 
tKe riotloa, Ve do aat ooawid^r tlie ruiioig orronooua. 
Tho uritfi^oo hH4 booa aalcect a» to hor huebo.ti4*ii ^'oaiar/'** 
Vkiia not otriotljr rooi^aaivo, her oAtawer imo oubotantialljr 

to t«wtlfy ft^oai |>yop«?;»tjr not o«ntciln«d in th« iaventory 
nvnloh «&» tli« basis of thm pro^S of Xo«9 aM4 wki^h if in 
t>t« r««or<S, Th# »nljir tff»tii«ony of %hmt kimi ifre fiud in 
the r«aord cnn«Jflrn» »oib« teox»« of old papfr*. pawphleta 
imd iMoka whlete wINt •ajT'i w«r« oi a« vaXu« «ad for wMiah 
HO olain *»« att<i«*, Th«ir« 0!*n fe# no irrror in tM-t tftsti* 

»«fGndismt furtJjfT ooaplaln* of ^s^rtRin iaotruotione. 
The 00 ift iiisl not «rr in r»ftt«ittjg d(»f«n4nat*« t^ndsjrod in- 
struotiono 1 to 7 in'3lu«lTf», Soaui of thost »iir# ft&ii/ oov«r«t4 
1>y th« ianiruotions ^iv^n aai otJaierii diti not RoourAtely 
or oorrootlar otiito the* Ittyi, Ab jjointodl oat in o r foxtat^r 
opinion ti»* otot*:**?!!** bu&4^ tsy th*^ plaintiff in hi» applioa- 
tioo fo'i* tMi^ inwtdraxio)* ««»t| un<l©r t.H« l««|pwig« of Xhf 
applioniion ami of the policy, ^ oonoidsrard «to r*vji»jr*s»cntft» 
tioao only And in ord r %0 find for tfe« 4«f«mdiini on th«j 
^Ottiid that »uo.h et«t«9io«,oio sr«r© f«6l,«« tt wonjl^l h^ »'P<sei8Wsury 
for th*^ jujry to b«lioT« from tJafi «vtd«n3» that tlw^ pl&intiff 
lind ta«dv> a iaot«»ial iai»r«pr»»ent«tien, wiXXfu2,ly and with 
knovled^fft thnt Jit woo f»l»o. fhie wa« not th** purport of 
tb» inotrustiuno «hiah th# «» >s»t refuood. 

Wo find oo roToroi^Xo trror in tlvs givoa in» 
»5truction« of wt%iah 4ofen4aat ooM^Xaino. c«o of thou «na JiiTOii 

•n th« foraf'r tsriai aad ««• jukoooo «jK)n wi»«n th« oaso wa« 
laiot in thie ooujrt. AnoiH r omo «t«ii«^s %h« X«w invoXYOd 
in thio oa«« as oot forth in our fowuer opinion ami r«f«rr«d 
to abov«»« la ouir oj^iaion th<?cton.fu»ion of wrde «»oatfrnd«4 

f«y ^ .l«f«nd«,»t io without anj/ «ul»»tftnti»X fore*» or m«t«r» 

tienti* in A »fttt'*r o» vhl sih this aoitrt j»«o#4 »n th«? ferwr 
4ipp«al, Th« juzy w«'rf^ tiiiei':»««t]4r iitiitra<rt«d en thltt j»oiitt 
iu thia trimX and th«F^ jRtAT« fe-\m4 m^in^t d«f«mt^ii*» 

It le pnrlioulArljr utrg«4 '^i^ %h« d«f<^4»At ill 

f^rndant urg^^ to tills ft«tion was tJbiat tH« plftltitif ' ha4 Mm* 

»#lf i»«t th« fir* whidfi o«»eu»eMi Mt* |froi>f?rty, in order that 
he ffiight eolX«n tMs inmiran^, A» k^^A) |i«ijLnW4 vm% in %\w 
f9rm«T ttP9«ftX« und<tr th« l^atv in thi« st»ttt« It ^)»» inoom* 
bent on th« a«f«naj!int to «i»tAbIis)} %lm %tu%h «f theit d«$f0nn« 
before ih« Jvirjf b«yon4 a 3Pv»«ii©?3ft.t5l« 4oul^t* 0»i thiw, as ■mXX 
en th« otitt''*r l««u»B pr#«<»!!it#4, th«pr« >i»v« fe^ffn %■«© trials 
and In <ta?jh of th«m tb» JttJry found th« laiKu«« in fsiYor of 
th«» plAinttff and aisalnvt th^ contentions of th^ dcfentiani. 
It 1b, of souroe, %m«, a« th# d«f<»n(iaat points out, tnai 
(%.l tl50\igli tHs f®«Jt» iSKVolTffd in « aasd aay >mv« 'b««?n pr»'8«nt«d 
to t'NO 4wri«o with tJiwi MBS* rosultt tlii« oourt vmy and aliould 
s«t thff last vffrdiot aside if thf? court, u^n s. c^rsful 
rnri^vf of th^i oa»«, is •!' t>i«> opinion th&t it is clearly 
agp.ifi»t th© iftonir<?et weigUt of th« c/idcrto*, It i«s farth«r 
truo, an th« dof«n4».Bt also 9eiRt.B oat, wi*f?r# ssmdh of t3*« 
t^etiidony- 8«l«nitt<»<J to %h<* Jury ie la th* f©x*» of dojEMJsl* 
tions, as vas Xha <3asft h<»r>4, t)«iit this <souri i« in as good 
ft p«isltion as was thK» jury, to ocaoffii to a oonol^islon upon 
th« woi^jht o^ ths «irvldenoe and in euoh a <m«e it may 1?« 
said th»t or4in«ri\y n r<»Tl«winK o«urt ssA^bt 9r*jp«rly re- 


v«rii« a JttiS^jpaMiit en a ono\3'lng whi csti K^.ght be Ifl-B;: titan 
would 19*? nece»«*py to lirln^ «U>ut tlxa t r«rult if th«? »?vi« 
(t«aee was in fhft forts of oral t«9ti»oiiy. 

Wvk% ill th« oiii«»« «t T»aT, th^ -«itn«;^« jsOBt «»n««3m«4 
wtih ib*» ^aup«« »«4« >jy th« ti«f»ncJant. n»Bi«ly th<? plaintiff 
hiautttif* watt on th«» witn««8« Ktnnd «uid no w»b hie wifn, '£1i« 
••a« Draft iru« of tbeprevious trial tmei eonsffqunntXjr tw» 
juries ]taiv« JMMW ih«8t iiritnofisAB, hft^rd th«wi testify, !»▼« 
lUkd mn ft^portunit? to o1»o^rTe th«m and oonolu<l« nt least 
«• to vhdtliws- t)M>y w«r4i lying in olaiEsina; th» aiaeuat of 
pro9<°rty lost »nd i^a valu«* Oouno^l for defendant iaak«e 
»adh of th« faot tlawit th« i>l»intiff, wh*^i© on tho etnna 
ft* a. witneoe, did not so into tho quoetios of th«> fire 
or ^aako any d««ii>^l of '.):i* oontention of thR defonaant that 
he hftd »«t thi» fir« hita««lf. That Bubjeot waa, of <»our»«, 
not an/ jart of the plalatiff's c»ae in 'jJitef and plaintiff 
eont«nd« tlaat h« dl<jl itot f«>«X gkOUi^^ upon to tak€ t2w 
atand ©n tlBkla point ia r*»buttal. aa Jae b«li»v»a dftfendaeat 
ha 4 fallen far ahort of imkinig out tlemt d«f«nB« V ita 
•vidaneti. This poiat, which defendant \ir<jOR, loot** suoh 
of Ita fore*, so far a« thSa trial i» oono«*ra«d, ^y reaaoa 
of th^ faot that after all tJ!u» other «vid«aa«» waa in, 
ooun««l for the plaintiff stated to th« «»urt that although 
thfty h«li»>ve«t that Vm dsifimcUint hiid fail ad to a««t tho 
burdan of aet*bli«hine tli« truth of this dp-f'^noo hoyoad 
a r«aacnabIo doubt and that tht^reforo th» plaintiff ttad 
nothing to rabut in thlo regard, nftYwrthelaao th*y i»er« 
goints to put him on th« et^nd and hf^ did tak* tho etand, 
apIMkrantXy to testify aa to this f<»atur<ft of th^poase and 
subnit hlaaolf to droaa saumiaatlon upon it, but h« '^^gm 

prmy«n%«>d from te \entifyine V ^<^*aon of ilnfl e1&JI«otie»n 
•f «otta««X for th« d«f9nd<uii ea this gr&und thc^t ftloilntlff 

throviish with lil»i »»ift^ tmthxtiQsully tHl« va9 a g«»<J olb4#o» 
tioa ym% «« qr« ^ir« »«!(}, havlnfi; ^taade it und thiit pV9yffm%*4 
tin.*! testitton^ of th« plmlntUt on thie mibJIt'Ot* wh«i im 
took t]%<i fttAn4 for t;^if%t ^urj^so, ov«ia tliouij;h not In thm 
r«?^l&r ordejr awd «ft«r oo'.^nii«fl Iui4 oaI^ th«y »^fo throu^gh 
with ihwii* pyoof « mid evi^-n t]Mu&;h tee rmjt haY« t«k«ti the 
oiaiMl* tMi (iefwQdant ot>nt9n4e, Isgr r<*aftOn of «ontt iaiiwitioa 
»ft<i«^ Isy tbo QouTt irk A oon^eroatlon with oouae#l for ibn 
9Aril0O, th« doft»iKl«nt rit^ieot^a «n opportui!iity it t^kon 
]te.d to {{vt thiB «vid«no« in thff re'^'OOr^ misd oroos oxamlno 
th« ^Lalntiff upon it, /mi after otwoolag tb&t tmMram the 
d^fonciant is hnr^lj i^> a |}f»8itlcR to mgktf ssucAi of «t ooiiton* 
tioH tliat ih» pXaiatiff »"*oid««l t«etlf^iii0 on this iesuo, 

TJvir© »r« man/ oueiiiffiouw «tr«ftt««t!»ino«s alw-.t tJiie 
flr« wMeh, in »oao d©gr«o, oapp>ort tla* th-^ory a4hrMiio«4 
Tiy th* (lof«mlttiil ?fcn<i th*' <i«jf«i>a»i« i»kioh it iat*n*p«««fi t® thio 
ootion* But ttf tor o OArnfui r«ftClin|E ^^ «^i tis«! t^otiaoiqr 
in th^ rooord, wo oro unn>}i« to »tty t>iypit tMo oocwsd verdioi 
(in iirhi<}hi tho Jury «iay« tli&.t tlte d«f«as«i tMi pX&Jbrttiff 
hiiuolf l»arn«»d up hio fjoodo itoo noi b««ii isistde out boyond a 
r«A«ena^9l« doubt and that %ht* def^^mt^o th«.t tim poXi«gr of li)» 
duraiiGo in qtuontion booaao vol a biy roaoon of falao r«pr<4o«ota* 
ti«nft made by j^iuiatiff <«!ith<«ir in oonn«otion with hiB appli* 
oatioB or hie proof of loss hao not b««» iwid« out by a 9r<«* 
pon<j rano^ of the «vid#no«} omt b« »aid to b« ole^riy agiRiiHot 
the aitmifoot woight of t^ c^^idenc^. 


Cirwitit 0ourt Iti Affiya»d« 



aVi • 24724 

Kcmr^'iHH COM. coni'AJnf, 
m eox>o rat last. 



a eorporatiipn. 

opinion ef ill* oourt. 

By thia tt^pttal th<» defenaant ii««]ke t« ripTer*© 
a Ju%ra9nt rPooY^red by th# plaintiff for tht» ssum ©f 
#429.39. ^ its atatamant of elaim, pl&lntiff all«g;a4 
that a balane? of $429 .99 w&» 4ue it from defendant *'on 
an aoaount a^rawd antj Btat<»d,* f«r «©al told ftiid <l«»iivejp- 
«d by the plaintiff to th# d«f «n«^ .at at th« Xatt«*r*« rw* 
quaat* tha aur»w»ns wae return'*'!^ narvad on def«nd<&nt "by 
4«XiTering a ooiiy ta oaa T, F. TXjfnn, A^ffnt," Appearance 
of the d«f«nd«iit watt duly fll«d ana alec an affidavit of 
aarits which waa sworn to by on« rhoaute P. Flymi. By 
tha affidavit of ffl«rit« yiyhn allefjea that tnf« d^fi^ndant 
had narar had any bu$tin*«e doalln^e with plaintiff and 
ihad not poraiiaaad the' ooaX in question and *that tha 
plaintiff did not deliy«>r to the defendant th« aoal euad 
for," and that th<?r« had not been an aooount stated be- 
twacn t:ae parties. 

yiyaa tswtifiad for d«fend«nt that ha had farmar* 

oat of exist'?no(} 1« I>«o«»1aer 19X6, i»h«<n it sold all ite 
a»o«t8 to th«i WauoharR (lr«nlt« ^»rrl<*p Company of whioh 
the wlt}i»»«8 itfiu alao preaLs nt; tJnat ih^ latter mnpHXiy 
purehtmotid ooa* ®*jp« of ooal from tftws plntotAff during 
1917 and had ando a p«;/»i«nt of #100,00 on aooount. The 
Gh««jk of th« 4;);u,&rrios 30Kp«Jiy for that aiaovint Is in ovi- 

The oeal In qu«iitioa, for the |>ayit«at of whioh 
9l«intiff ie ouing the Qriinit« loiapAny v«ao eoia In 1917. 

One Su^aora t^etif i«(:i that hn ha<2 ehHTg® »f 
th# orodit fiepartm^nt of the Chi ssgo Soid Uf^rohAnt^K 
Asoooiation and thnt this aooount «a8 plnoad in hi a handff 
for «30lleotion; that on Fe^rufiir^ 28, 1918, h« eiilX^A up 
■•ar, ?lyn»« on tJae t«lep>%on« and that yinnn «a44 ho muld 
tak« oaare of thio «o<»unt tfa« latt«r part of th» follow* 
iim w««Jei that on oevoral oocA«ion8 after that flyim 
asBurod hin tho ao>»ovmt ^nould W paid; tltat he wont to 
tho def«n<Jant«» offio« in th« (Jhaabejr of rjoaaoroa and 
•«w Flynn th«r« ooToral tlraoo; that h* oould not »ajr tim 
dofon'lant's nrmi* waa on tho door but h« aokod th« elerator 
•tartar «hor<^» tho Wauohara aranlto CoBty^axur vaa and got 
tho info ran tloa; that when h« vont to tho offioo in qttoa- 
tion he askoit if it vno in« offioe of thu Waushara aronito 
Oosqpany and vat told that it vaa. 

One Iriokoon tootifi«d that ho vao aasiotant 
■oorotary of tho plaintiff oooyfiany; that o tat omen to of tho 
aocount ouod upon woro oont ono« a month or oftonor to the 
tauohara araaito Oonpany boginning thirty days aft«r tho 
data of the aooount and that tho plaintiff novor r^oeirod 


najf pret«st froa thmn with rcferenet to tm acoonnt; 
thAt he had pr«i!«nt9d th« i^soount to Flyim who hnd 
ptremieed to 9«^ it the fellawing w««]£; that the plain- 
tiff taftd r«o«iT«d $100. oe on aeoouat of th« oo/il in 
quoation and this »uit wa» f®r th«!!i balitneft, 

a^iMftnno tootlfiod t!%t «h9n h« r$o«»lved tho 
•oeount for 3QXl«»«tion» it« wae given » etatwaent Taiy 
plaintiff «*jioi» wti» a «t«t<»aent from th« iJlaintiff to 
th« dofenuaat, giving th« dates of lh«; aoXivor/ of 
the ooal la quention cmd mh»ving a oredit of IXOO.OO 
OB aooo^mt. 

Ono Allan tootifie^i that in April, 1918, ho 
oalled on ?l/na la the office In thm dxaxAe^r of Ooaa07e« 
Building in Ihimge (whloh Flyiui teetifiad waa the ofTioo 
•f the ^Arri«m ^^osapaxiy) and told him lio mie fron the 
of ioe of thfj atternay for the plaintiff and that they 
had the daim of the plaintiff at^alnat tha Waufthar* 
Granite C2otapany and ra^ueeted payraent and that he pnh' 
•oatod JfXyrm with thp etMtesaant of the account, whieh wa» 
headed "^lualaara Sranita Company to f^orthern "loal ^oiapMiy, 
lar," and that }?lynn oaid b« hs-d ^aen out of th*^ gity and 
iraa Way and told hiu ha vouXd give th<aa a ohedk if he 
returned lator, that thie happened eaveral tiiaoa. 

W« are of the opinion that the roeord In thia 
oata io sufflelent to aetahlloh an aeoeunt stated against 
the def encUuit Oraaite Jempany. flynn was the preaid^ent 
of that oompany; ha a«3oepted serTiee of the uumsaonti in 
which the Oraaite CNia^paay was the defenaant muaad, fllad 
the appaaranae of the aranite '^apany or oaused it to he 
filed and also an affidavit of merits denying the aooount 

•tat«<} &• «llttged Vjr plaintiff. 

Xt Is ccntand<}d that It vstli inRumb«nt on 
plaintiff to proT« that the oc&X in question «a« sold 
and (ieliT«r«4l to th* d«!>f«nd«nt and not to the ^.ttarriee 
Ceapan/ ae ol.tim^td a,nd in Hupj^ort ef this oentRntion, 
• ur att«nti4n has b««»n «&lled to .aonnea <8h«i E|i^ t»^ MaX.t^.f t 
144 111, A|»p. 183, wher« th« court held that "it is* 
only in oaf« that getxHo hare b«#fn a«ld %y on« p^x'OQa 
to anoth(»r that tm aocoimt rond«re4 beeont^rrt tm aoeorint 
stated unl«en ohjoiotfld to within a r@a»on&l^)le tim«.** 
Wo do not »>n8id9X' th^t oae« in j^int* Th«» mcoount 
BtAt«3d In th«? oao«» at bar is not if'fitt^'blioH^d by ehowing 
an aeoount rmndftrnd and not oi»J«'et<»d to within m r«aeoii«> 
ablo tiiae hut hy oliov'ini^ an account rendered in th«) 
defendant's nat&e to one who admits he wao its prRsl* 
d«^n1i (hut who now olstime the 4ef<>>n4ant iwd proYiouo^/ 
^ene out of >3uoin«fl0 an4 thar it n»v^r did any >>u»ine«o 
with tho plaintiff) and ^ht) is si^iovn to have promised 
the payraent of t>iie aeeouat on a nvmh^r of oooaoiono 
when such aooounte or 8tatem«nte wf^re preoented to him, 
I^YiiiV auade that iireof plaintiff wan entitled to judc* 
aent a^tiinet the defendant without euteitting evidenoe 
to ?»tabli0h ti»»t defi»niant srae the company to which 
the eoal had l»een odd and ueliTered, An aooount ot.'ited. 
ae alleged i; plaintiff** etateia«ait of olaira, was fully 

l^r the reaeons etated, the judgimnt of the 
Municipal Ctoart is affirmed. 




43S • ««Vt« 


in r9 l»t«»rviini!^ ptfiillon of 


816I.A. 649 

opinion 9t %'iM 99'ir%, 

M» intervening pit%i%i»n %« V« fil^d, mmi nlim va@i$ting 
nil pr9<j«e<ling« hfh^ utaA^r 9»,i^ petition, 

9^a«r A 9»Ati»«t Willi «fi kt i»i>>di -nitk %tm ^Atf of 
Ohi«m^ for th« ii»jir«v«!(WBt »f «»«rtJiln »ir?»»t«, on« <3hftal3««i» 

lia pure>l»».»»a oc'Tialn aj'^i«riftXo from tb« «i^9«Xl«e, Mrrett 

l»agr U» «w4»uBi» Im 9Hr«ij %h«a« two acneern* for %h» am%ttr» 
i«lB 6d puralMiS(94, &n«i ti^R^ fiJL«d tforlr notloes of ll«a 
vltjb tl^ 9i%j o/fialnlft a» ri#q[uire<i by utAtut*. eiunil>«ylia 
re4u^«4 hi* ^»1m i»A(»iB«t ih--^ c3.%y %c ;iude»nn% In th« 
iSutsloipta Oourt of CMOftgftf th« natnunt of hi» ittd^«»t tH»iiig 



.l&mp&gsSf ^ tXln4 %%i» bill %6 mtimbXinh tux'i f(i7«<3lo»«! itii 
Ii«n oa tha fuQfi flu* Clmftb«rlln tron th» Qitijr »n<i nutemii 
?• J. I^ml9 HUnnuraoturinc ■itia^s^ny«i tititt Oiiy of m^ilm^, 

4tt'f«Rd.iMt ^3}!Mtt1i«»rlii» AAmt^rnd. denying lls«« ^rlsdn of tii* 
A|p9«ll«4» And alfto lt» rlglii to a Xl«a,tki^ t^f% ^<»f«andant 
oit/ f t3.a4 A foiristtX Afifiw«r« Th« a«f#i34aiti f» J« l^ftwie 

Oit^ to '!haja»e3rlia. 

Ba««4 ixgxfn %}m r99<?f% •f tli« ^A»t»r t« ^him tH6 
0Atti»« w«^ r«f«r3r«4« %im (3«ur% tMtetr^^ ft S#^r««^ ^fwariliag 
th4^ Ap^«ll«»i»t 3N^r«ti MAnufAOturli^. Qmamma^ « Ilea iftgi 
lla^ ftusd 4u« fr<)>8i i^ Ait>' ie {jl^N»«'b«rlint to %im ^x%*nt 
of |9t9<}7*43« and a1«c Awardi^t^ a littn to tlvf 3^, ^« I«««1a 

4«f#aeiA»t <S>itinb*»]rlin pr;N^«<i tun n.&p«!siX frets thl» 4»ej*oft «hl«li 
wftA a11ck««»<s a9«n tis«« fllijm Af » e#:rtif i oat^ ef ^'fl^mntm 
An^ A l»on4 but this «p^<»A>l !!m» not ^tfrfeoi^^, 

A :fow wAAkff After th« 4037«« Iiib<I b^^n oaterodc 
tlio ii.£>]H>XIdnt l^nrttiy a^pmir^d )i«jror«3 tlMi' 4u4j{A «^o I3a4 
•ai<»r«d tlM a«ar«o tuad a,«kea l«av« to fll« iU» iat@rv«nlag 
^titioij «hl all i««Mi Allewoa ov^y oli^«>otien ei A99o3.1<:t«, 
SUurrett MAmafAOturins io«ipAi)Qr« 'Thia petition oot ay t)i«^ 
(l«93r«9 ttHioia h«d Won <»nt<?':f«a ond a11i»is(»4 tliat ^Ivmb^irXin 
tm^ «Ado im AAfti^Mtfierni oi nis^ Jjudt^ont AifHittAt .the Cltjr 
of <C^ioA#i Aa4 titftt t.)ii*ou€l$ A ntuMl>{>r «^ tsu^a«<;ttont AOAlgn* 
ttttnt« it iwd fijfiAlly fe»<m «Bei^«a to t.n« latorv*&ja'ug i?otA» 

petition' 7* 8 rigfe'4, titlt m«l inV''?»9t in au^ to th«5 Ju^^k- 
n«at b« pt70ttt«t«4 Had ixi^ rlghte sit» «iiRsigii«(» thf'7»Gf 

b« «djttdi^At<»a ttititl tM i»}!90u(-'<t fduKttS to bt' auo hlM ^9 oi*d(»r4»d 
jMiid to hla. 7h« or-ti9jr allowing th« flllAg of tho int«rv«iii» 
1ji$ petition, r«^(|uir<fd a«m»1»«rlin tta4 iii.'» A«Miigii(ie ftnil t^ 
8ub»9qu«at &a»iga««fi to JSinswar tli« i^«tition %ut it <iic n0t 

■rstjuir* tMft ;:it/ •f ■^hiS'-i^ »ip tis® lien iwreditftrt ©f 
ShaMb«]riiii» to frnftusKry th« p«(tition nor ^me suoh an 0rd«»r 
prfltyt.i tfor by \m ji«titi©a*ip» fh« or^'isr »i>«oif4ts»lly 
Xis»it«?<; any «oatr©Vfiitty thbt iai^rht Ari%9 th^rmm^'-'T, to 
that lw»tw«*tn Cl;ii»i9b«»rl i» Riid his f»».ei^«i»?5 ^jftxl p»ir4«i«<i timt 
th« filing ©1 tV»® j>«titioa »h«uld "in no «1«® op<5r&t« t© 
«h«in£«, «Esi«ad, jsodify or r«op«Ti th» 4«<jre«? iisi tMs <s»urt 
her«tofar« •nt«iN»4. * 

ir«iih«.i' (^mnlif^sriiii nor «ti^ of t)iiu> mmBl^fR/mm ftf 
the Jttd«jFii«at, tta9««)r«»d th« p«titi9a» lattt th^ir (di«f&u^lt« 
'««*'r« n<»t t«)e«n« n»vr#ir<»r thtt Int^i^eains i>«!titian«r 9«iit 
b«for<» tmotihi**r 4^<2e* o^ ti»9 Cijr«4it 7«urt nn^ r^bt^iia^a ttn 

ord^^r rttf^^rring Me ;?«tititta t© « Mtt»t#r in Qhtin<nty* a»un»«I 
fttr th« petitioner gairc n«tie<% of the h^i^ring &n tim p«titi»« 
boforA %h» winter to appc»ll««)« Bairvott Manufaotwritig Q&aimmsF, 
although it 9«.« not a i>«Lrtjr to th:^ j»i»ti,tion nor ini»7««ita<i 
in Aiv i»«u« th^t oeuX4 nris^ oa th'» ^«titie»» umSf^r tine 
ord«r vhidii hud botia •nt?>r«f!u allOT»iH^g it to h^. fll^d* c-n tiiio 
ktosrittg, th« H««it«r proow^-tlod to hwar «iTi4<i?n» not o«ly wpoiai 
the quwtstioaa rai«»«>i by thd* i^»tiiio» lanJ <»¥i?>ro<i by the ord«>r 
ftllewintf it '»»fl9 V« fil«d« but ^Iko ui»oit ti3^:' «ttt«»titm^^ inroiv^d 
in th* uAia 4tia«i, inolutsing ih*^ right of th« «9g«Xle^, 
l«jnr«tt Hanufnotujpi nu ^»j^ny to tho Ilois vhtch It ^ii^imod 
*M& vtklab tht« 4i<>or«« found it woe ontiti^^t to »Lfi<^ Aimr«l«i(di 


t& it obA the M'ftttt^r pr«9ar«4 a r«px:rt finding %:h»% %h» 

lien ii 9k&,im04 lititt t^bat 4h« intenrening p^^t^tiontsr 

OoMfumiy, «pp#«,3rea 1»*^fore V^* Jud^je wh© .^ma «at<^r«sdi the 
drlslD:^ 4«»er«« aa«l th? ordt^r «ilowlng this lnt»rv«aifi45 p«V 

an or^^r T««Atlng ^..^«i> i»jr«vi)'>u« 9V&'^r ftXlov^ng ti^s^ filing 

froa« Xa Mup^Airt of thi.m netl^n mppmXlm^^, Bftrrwtt liami* 
f^i^tttjrlng a^si^Mi^y, 9:r9t«>fii«4 tih^ «iffidaYit of &i» a«»un<$«»i, 
a<»iUit(gi U9» AKsoMe othitp till nits, thai wb^a tivi i«t«rtr«Qin^ 
petition ««» pr-mfmi&Ap Va^ '.miirt •tm%«Ki th^% it «toa.i't not 
1>« fil«4 n.0 %% iMiS net b«<^n jipir'is^ni^d ^tn-.-an final 4«>er«« 
h.^.d \M»«it ««it<*r«<i, «h<^^r«u|M»tt aounisel for tim iat«irT«ning 
peiitioa??? (»)•;«> »fi» th« «^ae ■50a«»el who J^j-jS r«pr«te«'at«d 
CiMuab'srlia is t)V) Main oasa) utAtea th»%t all t>mt vaa 
d»»lr«fl «aa an a<IJudi<taiien of ih« ri<g;ht9 of thc^ inmT» 
vvnlim petit! OH'?? yorriy, «•» tti^lnat 3hB«i^«yll«» tun^ %\m% 
it «aa aat <i«»»irad tt» a^«n u{^ ^h«-- «»«« aeaia ft^r a ]rifth«»ar» 
ing on mgr af %h't* i«Ait«ra dLreutjy d<'^oid«4 a»4. <ni^»6<li«(j 
la th« 'l*ar»« <idtiti>» had ^a«n «mter<»d, T»lif?r*»u^©ra t/v^ oourt 
•ntara<l aa or4fy alXovin^t tb« fllinis of t]|ai» iaterv«)»ing 
I»etiiiats tMti Aafittiag Vm la»\i«» to 1»« a<»t«*7mia«<Si uod^T 

Miinm.\tiQ tlmt th'? «tr<ier n^^pmaXna tram 1» « 
fiaal Ofjrdesv tmA kh- ntf&f:^ mffp&^n^l^s atad without d««tldifl^ 
tlmt $iutt»tlfiin »• fix^* of %h<» tipini®xi %h^% th« tri^l ooru^'t 
4id not »rr in •nt-^r-lng It, ?b« Rjotioa fer l»Ktm to fil« 
tb« int«rv«n4m$ im%ltii»n '^'-tx tsne a44r«».««^e«l to v$i<> dis9r«tieii 
of th« Qouri «i»4 JLik#wi»«, tJi^ moii&ii %^ ft^mk%n t^ce ord^z' 
filleving inn iHi>titidB to b« fil»s «»« «?»« a(i4r»«ts#d to 
tto© «i»er«tii*n ©f th« «ourt, .In rimf ef th« faat tJmt %h» 
oottjrt h>k4 «9^<8ifi<9ally j^y«tl4«>4 In \h« ordi^r ftll«iriag the; 
petition to ^9 fl,\i»d, th»t %hm y«tJltlon Afiil tu^!' pro9««4K 
lag* u»d«r it »hou.l4 hifcVtt .n&thin^ to «8« ndih tl^<^ i^^^att^re 

•el»ly tt> th»!t 4««t#»j««.iaatlon »f th« r««p««rt4v« ri^hta of 
th« p«titieB«x* jCorrox '^<1 ^^^ ortglntkl 4<^f«nd«iit :2%MUttb«r» 
lin* vo Aftt of tiiet opialc^n th^it thcu-'; «%» no abuno of 
dleorotioa &» Dm '^mr% of tJt)» @ourt i» ^mt'^riag t^# or4frjr 
a|)F««iio<i froit« w>i««n it -fum e^iowist tH«. t th« pfstitlonor, uj^on 
a«»0ttrlniS a rijforeaoo to tt yEaet«s' hft4 m«"biBitt«<3 ovid^noo 
fsaTlng tcv 40 with tiw righto whlt^k thi^ dpear»« $>roYiou«ljr 
ont«r«4 }»a4 it«tor»iii<»'?, at bntv#'^n the ooi^l.«in«it B«rri»tt 
Mamifttoturlng ''^npoiigr oa«! :;T)iaKi1»<«rllji, :«%o4 tvj4 promur®^ 
a flndtnfc of tha I£ast«?r to timt eff<;;ot, «e ^viti'^Qod ^ 
Xh<^ r«i^j>ort of tJM ^oier« th» point h»<3* ^ m^p**llpm%^ 
f9Tt^t to tho offfjot tfaftt IM* wiil owfr***? II «5 Hifjloto dr»i«i 
of hie rlgiitti oo o^iinot ChnMi)>«irXUi if %)xn ttT4<»T oj^tjooled 
frea in ollowod to otnatf, i» entir^Igr without <!'iorit* 
In ojDty liticoticn vhl^ h» ^Mty «««t fit to ^rine f<°*^ tl»» 
purpooo of ffxttiinfi Mo rights ao^tkinot \3hiialMti-Xlii, ao 


M»«&«pa«<t of the Ju<iB3n«itt« thm ord^r Ap|^«%a3l«a f>«j» iiir* ««iii 

'Ho art, a3>9^«itl«fd fr»«i, i» ^tfirrmiU 


In the »m«|^«r- of Q"t;HaiA 


/ f . 


216I.A. 650 

opinion of tSi« oonrt* 

Qo\ir% 9f O0Qk CittuJttjf r«^f\it»ine to «ti»ehiir4$e ihc» »pp9llant» 

1i^ ih« Kuni ttliml 0«ur% ef ahiet^ig*. iii't^^jr Ju<fli!^Ani mat 
r«n<i«r«4 «.45n*Ji«t iBwir in urn aotlon in iajjj. 

On th« arftX arsruflutnt of tht ,ma« in tii^iit^ dottrta 
the (iiie?itiea of ih* p -w*** of thp /Kaniftif^ftl tsa-iirt to i»mo 

th« »rit of q«»i <if ^ BAtiigfaoiftn^l^ i pii wae iil«6<m»»«4 ^ 
«»uRe«l r<^pr« 80 at iag; thff r**»p««tlv« parties. AitbetiM.:** 
tho ^oist 4e«a «ot ooim to im-ttt \n^mn yniowd in thw fleunty 
Court Olid ie not i»entieii«<l in th*» bj'iofo filwd in thio 
oourt, '5« aro of t*i« opinion tl»»t it nmn. pi^porly bo 
roieo<l a% atyr titoo a» it <^«?r to th«»^ quo»tioii of i>i* jujpio- 
diotioM of tlt» oourt iosuinu th«^ writ whi«fii v&m iwroXv^ti 
in tho iiroo«»ding« in th« Oount^ Oourt^ froa viiilih tho 
appeal wao takoa. 

eiioa looJiing inic the raoorc in tni» oaee w« find 
ihftt in th« «ui*^ In %h^ mniclpnl Oourt of <:j^iie*\«© tiw? 
dftfenutmt, a*tori{i« W. aormor«, (apfi>«*lla«t Iwxe) irii« «$«• 
f«iult«4 for Trant of lui u-ffidRvit of *.3«»rlte end »/Q«,t 
•uto»«qu®ntiy th«r« wf»» an jw^ j^^a ^ rte to»«rltt£: b«fori(!> a Jury 
ana » T9r4iot, finding the defendant ^uilt^ in mimn^r 
«n«t fern as ehargiMl in th« i^laintil'f*& «tatm:i«nt af claim 
and th'^ diuaftgav ft«e««»ed «t 1550, CHt). Th«' notion *47a« 
i** tort and tJv- »tiiit«.M*Mt of «a.aisa all«««ii & f«».le« and 
fraudulimt r«»pr»#«<tnt*tioa ©w th** part of tJi* «l»f ^ndunt, 
Tha iaauo iavolving Ihe IfjU^^ l oimrgad was n«»v«»ap Join(»<4 
aar was it «T«»r paa«««l upea by tlia jury, in th«» suit; In 
tha Municipal Oourt, rsaotion 1 af th^ Aot of June 18, 
1893 {J, f« A. Saa. 4146) grovide* that no iiara^n ahall b« 
impriaonad far naa-paysaarit of a 4udgv«©nt in aa^ oiYll ae» 
tion axcwpt upon oonyiotion \Ky a jury, unlaae th« defend- 
ant in «tt«h notion *«!▼©» « Jury in writinit. Ae thn daf q»4- 
ant waa aat aonriat^^ti of ihs^ toy;1|. &1X^q<*q \3iy the vardiat 
of th«» j«ry, whi di wfts? avom majraly to avs^eae th« daiatag*^*, 
a writ of aa»iaa af[ i |atf.iefg^.<yian<imq could tiat pre p«r ly b« 
iasuau on tha Judgraont, although the Judgjaant itaalf joay 
Imi a ifaod Judg;maat for th*» ajsount found tc !>« due. in 
the aatter of tha Pstiti-.n of l*<^s^ W^imka . g(57 X41. App. 459. 

^*a:-a th«r«? in na poitar to ia9ua a writ of qgitpi ^ itf)^ 
al aa t i t<f a ai and w^ . eush atiaanoo af juriodiotion in th»s o©%iri 
iaeulng tha writ aay bR tfck«m adrantaija of in tha x)rtioa#4ing 
for diaaharge, although it a»ay bo aaid tMt tha batter prao» 
tiea mmHii b^i ta raova to quaah th«> writ in tha «>urt in 
«hich it waa taouad, iluntington ▼. s^atager, 158 111. 272, 

Srtof ." ' 

'.t •>J,f!l^ 


V« a«<«4 it uane3<yftS5«r^' to O'. a»14<>ir 8lb*=?r point* 
vHieh aur« mrppiffi in tb« briefs. 

For the rentent stat«a th^ Judg^&ent of Uii* 
Couat>' Court will be r^iremed and thr aauKe wili b*» r«» 
»a»d*4 t© tMt OD'irt with dir^otion® to enter an order 
dl^ghisrgln^ th* app«llftftt an prnyfd by har in th«* |><sti«» 
tio« fiX«»4 in thflit oourt. 


4f « . 24860 


r.AT^ ^mjo: a^ ^cm Iovar, 

^'^ / /\ /7 


'E16I.A. 6 50 

SR« :PH^^*'8lSI»<J JtlS)TX(31S TKOMSOS dellvftre* the 
opinion of th«^ fjourt. 

By thl« »39«hI the *lOT»kB b«^ to r^vera* a 
Jud^^«nt awarding pe«8e«t«Jloit to th<s pliiiatiffe in a 
fersllile ^ntry und tl«t«iii«r «'Ut brought in the y\xnioipsiX 
CkJurt o.f Qtiisaco* 

Qa« An(l<»r>»on, b«in^ the owner of th(^ proMivto itt 
%ttOfttion, <in%r>r'»->i into a ;triti««t) <K>ntra<st with J«m«9 :'^OTaJc 
a)B4 £«te i^ovak, th«'re^y aiErooini; to sell the pTnain<f» to 
them for #3,750, th<:» tevnt of psjfsiftat being #400 do-wn and 
132 p«r MontJa thoro&ftor with Intorojiit on the unpaid h«l«n«« 
at «iz p«r 09nt p^r annum, pAy«%>l« :;aonthX/. ?he>e was a 
first mortgaifo on tho preialeos vhioh the Hovalco a^r«e4 to 
ronew at th«ir oxponao an«i th«^ also agret^d tc pa/ all 
taxoo aad ftO«o«<ns«ttto. 

In 1W3 th« plaitttiffu aoquired title to ihn 
proBils"» ia qtt«»stion hy warmnty dood frea Anderson and 
hie vifo, Th« ^valn aado no paym«nt on the g»iiiioi9al, 
iiiid«r th? oentraot, aft«r Fobruary 19XS, and no pe^^mttnta 
w**r« niad« on th«» int^rost after 8ept«ftab«r 1917. Jara«e 



r ^ 

lf»Tak di«d duriit^ ^she winter of 1917. Ihf fir»% rtortgikg* 

ab«T# ref»*rr«4 to «8jai« du«? mxiA th® defftntfanto f«i.l«u to j»»y 
kkM »ot«8 and r(»fua«4 to rfffim th<(? rriortgei^e , wh«r«iupoa th« 
holder of thn mortg««:« i2i»titut«>d for^flO-OBure pree«»dlng«, 
aittking the plaintiff* hf?re j>«rti«» d "ftttaftnt aiwJ th<? 
latter filed a t^ronr^ bill in that euit, B«eklBK ^° hfli^v« 
the eontraot of sal? l>«iwe«n Andtfreon ftati th« Moraks ean*